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.]
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.
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.
"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.
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.
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.
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?
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?
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.
We are no closer to a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, still a critical factor in Middle East conflicts.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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."
We Christians should be in the pocket of no political party, but should evaluate both candidates and parties by our biblically-based moral compass.
We don't vote on only one issue, but see biblical foundations for our concerns over many issues.
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.
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.
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.
I am overwhelmed at the historic nature of what's happening this week, and it's important that we all think about this. It's important for me as a Mississippian. For me, I can't stop thinking of the Mississippi Freedom Democrats and Fannie Lou Hamer. I wish Hamer could be here.
In 1964 the Mississippi Freedom Democratic Party (MFDP) arrived at the Democratic National Convention in Atlantic City with the goal of unseating the "regular Democrats" and representing their fellow Democrats from Mississippi.
The Freedom Democrats were civil rights pioneers attempting to engage the political process and give African Americans equal participation in our nation's democratic system. They wanted to vote. They wanted to participate. They wanted their voice to be heard.
The regular Democrats were the establishment. They were all white and were seeking to maintain the status quo, which was maintaining their control of the political process in Mississippi.
The Freedom Democrats stood for an America where everyone had a place at the table. The regular Democrats stood for an America where the white establishment had a place at the table while African Americans stood to the side taking what scraps were tossed to them.
Fannie Lou Hamer led the Mississippi Freedom Democrats. She was impoverished, a sharecropper with hands calloused from the back-breaking work of hand-picking cotton. She couldn't read. And she had lived a life with no say about her own choices. Speaking before the DNC credentials committee, Hamer proclaimed "Is this America?"
Hamer is also famous for telling America, "I am sick and tired of being sick and tired."
The Freedom Democrats were denied official recognition, but the MFDP kept up their agitation within the convention. The MFDP delegates borrowed passes from sympathetic northern delegates and took the seats vacated by the "regular" Mississippi delegates (most had left), only to be removed by the national party. When they returned the next day to find that convention organizers had removed the empty seats that had been there yesterday, the MFDP stayed to sing freedom songs.
This week, 44 years later, the Democratic Party at their national convention in Denver, Colorado, has nominated Sen. Barack Obama as their candidate for president of the United States.
The diverse Mississippi delegation of black and white, the heirs of the Freedom Democrats of 1964, many with direct connections with those who were there in 1964, cast their votes for this historic candidate.
Let's not forget the true nature of this historic week. Let's not forget the African Americans back in Mississippi who once couldn't vote, who lived under Jim Crow, and on Thursday night will watch a black man accept the nomination of the Democratic Party to lead this oldest active political party on the planet, to be their candidate for president of the United States. What will go through their minds?
Fannie Lou Hamer was right to ask in 1964, "Is this America?"
As I sit in my hotel room here in Denver, in 2008, I would love to be able to tell Hamer, "Yes ma'am it is. Yes, ma'am, this is America; it's your America. Yes, ma'am, because of your determination 44 years ago, in just a few hours a black man will stand on one of the globe's largest stages and demonstrate to us that this is indeed the America we hope for."
Burns Strider is former senior advisor and director of faith outreach for U.S. Sen. Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign, former advisor to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and currently a founder and partner of The Eleison Group.
One of the stories I first heard on my recent visit to Australia was about what helped swing the vote last November to Kevin Rudd, the new Labor prime minister. I read some new political data by veteran pollster and researcher John Black, who is respected across Australia's political spectrum. Black reported that the pivotal swing vote to Labor this time was among evangelicals and Pentecostals, especially in some key seats in the states of Queensland and South Australia.
That was especially surprising and significant in a very secular country. The Labor Party here, like parties of the left elsewhere, has not been known as "religion friendly," and the Liberal Party (the conservatives in Australia) has had much of the religious vote by tradition and default. But this time was different for a number of reasons.
First, Kevin Rudd was a new kind of Labor candidate who speaks openly and comfortably about his faith. Rudd -- a Catholic who attends an Anglican church -- is theologically articulate, and even likes to write articles about German theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer. Even more important, the evangelical/Pentecostal swing vote was due to how the agenda is changing in those faith communities. In the past, as in the U.S., issues such as abortion, homosexuality, and cloning seemed to be the primary concerns among the religious. But now the “religious agenda” includes global poverty, climate change, and the rights of Aboriginal people, especially among a new generation of Australian believers.
Christian organizations, such as World Vision, are among the leading voices on poverty, the environment, and the trafficking of women and children in economic and sexual slavery. The university events at which I spoke last week were led by “Vision Generation,” a youth movement sparked by World Vision that is leading a campaign to challenge the chocolate industry's use of child workers in West Africa, where 70 percent of the world's cocoa is harvested. The venues were packed. And everywhere I went, the protection of the earth and the threat of global warming was front and center.
Rudd’s clear Christian faith and his embrace of the new agenda of social justice and environmental stewardship seemed to be the big reasons why the evangelical and Pentecostal vote shifted this time. And that swing made a crucial electoral difference.
As I reported in my last post, I met with Kevin Rudd over dinner one night and had a long conversation about all these issues. But I also met with the leading Independent senator, Nick Xenophon, who may represent the balance of power in the new political configuration. He is from the Greek Orthodox Church and is also an articulate Christian on social justice. And on my last day in the country, I was also able to chat briefly with the opposition conservative leader, Brendan Nelson, who told me he meets regularly with faith leaders in Australia, and has also read my books. All the media interviews I did during the week were eager to explore the issues of faith and politics, both in the U.S. and in Australia. For a "secular" country, the social and political impact of faith seems to have become a hot topic.
I like winning, but I've done a lot of losing in my life, especially when it comes to voting. I've got a pretty good track record of picking losers.
But recent history tells us that picking winners in presidential elections has its own dangers.
What happens if the presidential candidate you prefer wins this fall?
As a Christian and citizen, you owe the winning candidate -- whoever he is (we've only got "he's" left this time around) -- the gift of what my friend Jim Wallis calls "prophetic distance." That means two things.
First, you need to be near enough -- connected enough -- to fulfill the kinds of obligations you have as a citizen (suggested, for example, in 1 Timothy 2:1-2 or 1 Peter 2:13-17), and the kind of obligations you have as a follower of Jesus to every human being. Simply put, that means you need to do for the president what you would want others to do for you if you were in his shoes (or in his Pennsylvania Avenue address).
Practically, what does this mean? If you were president, you wouldn't want people to mock you or misrepresent you. You would want your words and actions to be interpreted intelligently and charitably -- not gullibly, but not cynically either. You would want others to tell the truth if they thought you were going wrong, just as you would want them to express their support if they thought you were doing good. You would want citizens to give you the support required to do your job well, which, while it doesn't require agreement, does require respect and civility.
Second, "prophetic distance" requires that you be not too near relationally, not too connected emotionally, not co-dependent or sycophantic -- distant enough to maintain the ability to speak the truth (as you see it) to power. If you lose that distance, you are in danger of becoming what some have called a "useful idiot" -- a yes-man/woman who has lost independence, objectivity, fairness, and the ability to differ.
So if you become a hostile adversary, lobbing verbal bombs from a tactical distance, it guarantees that you won't be listened to. And if you become a compliant yes-man, it guarantees you won't have anything to say that is worth listening to. In between those two extremes is the arena of prophetic distance.
This balance -- near enough, but not so near as to be co-opted; far enough, but not so far as to be ignored -- has eluded many. For example, I recently heard the great preacher/theologian/activist Ray Rivera retell the story of Amaziah, originally told in Amos 7:10. Amaziah was a priest who became the yes-man to King Jeroboam of Israel. The "patriotic" priest tried to pressure Amos to quiet down and join him in cozying up to the king, thus losing his prophetic distance, but Amos -- with characteristic flair -- refused. One also thinks of biblical heroes Nathan and Esther in this regard: Each (in vastly different ways) was close enough to the king to gain access and be heard, but each kept sufficient emotional distance to speak the truth (see 2 Samuel 12 and Esther 8).
Insecure and unwise leaders will seek to surround themselves with yes-men and yes-women. They will "cherry-pick intelligence" to tell them what they want to hear, and they'll marginalize all minority reports. In contrast, secure and wise leaders will always want independent voices around them -- voices who speak from a place of "prophetic distance" -- voices who have the courage to differ and whose loyalty to their nation and their president is always superseded by their loyalty to the truth. This is true of state and local leaders as well as national ones, and it's true of denominational and congregational leaders no less. May you and I be the kinds of leaders who listen to prophetic voices, and may we be the kind of prophetic voices to whom wise leaders can turn for wise input.
We will elect a president this fall. There will be a winner. But we will all be winners if that president is sure to have courageous and honest truth-speakers around him in the zone of prophetic distance.
Brian McLaren is an author and speaker and serves as Sojourners' board chair.
All of us who choose to vote must base our vote on something.
For some people, it's party. They're Democrats or Republicans and from election to election, they support whomever the party serves up. For others, it's a litmus-test issue -- abortion, homosexuality, war, whatever. For others, it's fear or hope or some other "gut-level" appeal -- whoever scares or inspires them the most gets their vote. And for still others, it's a "group thing" -- they belong to a group (a race, a religion, an interest group, trade union, a social class, or whatever) that issues a statement on which candidate is most attractive to their group, and that's who wins their vote.
For many of us, none of these factors are satisfying.
My faith and commitment as a follower of Jesus won't let me decide based solely on party, litmus test, emotional appeal, or group affiliation. Rather than voting along party lines, I evaluate each candidate on his or her merits. I don't have a single litmus-test issue -- I see a wide range of issues that are all in play with varying degrees of weight. (More on this in a future post.) While I realize that both hope and fear have a role in all my decisions ... I don't want to be swayed by emotion alone. And because my faith commits me to a concern for "the common good," I can't simply let the interests of the groups I am part of determine my vote, but I must have a special concern for the poor and vulnerable, and must even take the needs of my enemies into account.
That, by the way, means I can't simply vote on what's best for Christians, or Protestants, or evangelicals, or whatever. My Christian commitment obligates me to ask what's best for Muslims, Jews, atheists, Buddhists, and others. And my understanding of environmental stewardship obligates me to ask what's best for birds of the air, flowers of the field, and fish of the sea too. Since they don't have a vote, I need to try to speak on their behalf. And as a citizen of God's kingdom, which transcends all national boundaries, I can't simply vote based on what's best for U.S. citizens: My vote has to have in mind the good of Mexicans, Canadians, Iraqis, Iranians, Chinese, and Burundians as well.
In this way, my faith doesn't make my voting easier ... it calls me away from a broad and easy highway to the voting booth to a rough and challenging path. Harder, yes, but for me, better by far.
Brian McLaren is an author and speaker and serves as Sojourners' board chair. You can learn about his books, music, and other resources at brianmclaren.net.
I've been blogging lately about faith, politics, and voting. In a recent post, I reflected that this election season will require us to have thousands of conversations, millions even -- around dinner tables, sitting at the beach, during hikes and boat rides, online, in church fellowship halls, and parking lots -- about truly important issues for us as Americans and as Christians. We'll need to talk about race, war, poverty, sustainable prosperity, the environment, energy, national unity and fragmentation, torture, what it means to be a moral leader in the family of nations, and even the meaning of voting itself. I then expressed my prayerful hope that through these conversations:
... our nation will become a little wiser, a little less racist, a little more humble, a little more good-hearted and unified and respectful, one conversation at a time, one person at a time.
That prayerful hope came back to me the other day when I read a post by a good friend. He suggested we should advise everybody and endorse nobody. I'm quite certain that my friend meant, by the word endorse, "blindly, uncritically, and without reservation express support for." And, of course, with that I would fully agree.
Looking back over religious-political discourse in recent decades, many of our religious leaders implied, "If a candidate is right on issue A and issue B, support him without reservation," which carried the tacit message, "These issues are so important -- don't worry what he says about issue C and issue D." The result of this kind of endorsement was that millions of Christians supported President Bush on two issues, and then were strangely silent and uncritical about other issues -- like the failure of the Iraq war to stand the test of just war theory (not to mention the spiritual call to Christ-like peacemaking, etc.).
Millions of voters may do the same in 2008, uncritically endorsing the candidate who wins them by taking a for-against position on one or two issues -- whether or not he will actually make a positive difference in regard to those issues, and without critically assessing other issues that are also profoundly important. (For me, one such issue would be how itchy a candidate's trigger-finger is regarding war with Iran.)
On the one hand, then, if we tacitly define endorse as many have in recent years, I fully agree with my friend. But on the other hand, I worry that some people may unwisely extend my friend's comment to voting itself, or to talking openly about who we plan to vote for and why, for each decision is a kind of endorsement. In fact, voting and engaging in intelligent dialogue about voting are the kinds of endorsements that every one of us is expected to make as a responsible member of a democracy.
Again, even in voting, we must realize that we do so without giving uncritical, unqualified support to our political system. Our whole system is, as nearly all of us agree, a broken system, corrupted by big money at one level, distracted by superficial media on another level, subverted by unscrupulous political operatives on still another level, influenced by injudicious religious leaders on another, and weakened by voter apathy/ignorance on yet another level. Some may choose to protest the imperfection of the candidates or the imperfection of the system by not voting, or perhaps by writing in "Jesus" on their ballot. But doing so, we should remember, doesn't provide a pious shortcut to responsibility, any more than voting based on litmus-test wedge issues does. In fact, it could be seen as aiding and abetting the least scrupulous parties and candidates and subverting the more honorable ones by treating them as if there were no difference between them.
Anyway, these are the kinds of respectful conversations I hope we can have over the next two or three months. Speaking personally, I will vote in this election. I will continue to share with anyone who asks whom I plan to vote for and why. In that sense, I will endorse a candidate as a private citizen of this nation.
But whoever I vote for in this or any election, my vote will not imply uncritical, unqualified, unconditional, and unreserved endorsement. I know I'm choosing between the better of two good-but-imperfect candidates, or the less dangerous of two dangerously flawed ones. I know that I'm voting for a flawed human president in a flawed human system, not a Savior. But the Savior, after all, doesn't need or even ask for my vote in 2008. The Savior asks for much more: my life every day and every moment, expressed in the kind of daily voting that I've written about elsewhere.
If my preferred candidate is elected, I owe him something much more fitting than uncritical, unqualified, unthinking, unconditional support. But that's a subject for another time.
Brian McLaren is an author and speaker and serves as Sojourners' board chair. You can learn about his books, music, and other resources at brianmclaren.net.
Some folks I've talked to are not going to vote in the 2008 elections. Some are disillusioned. Some don't like either candidate enough to vote. For some, not voting is an act of protest against the whole system, which they believe is hopelessly corrupt. Some believe that their citizenship in God's kingdom means they shouldn't become involved in "earthly" citizenship.
While I respect my friends who aren't going to vote -- especially those who have prayerfully thought the decision through from multiple vantage points -- I will vote in this election for several reasons.
1. True, there are plenty of reasons to be disillusioned with U.S. politics (corptocracy and plutocracy being major ones). But in my travels in other countries it has become clear to me that even though our system has a lot of problems (and that was a gentle understatement), many other nations are far more corrupt, far less transparent, etc. If we in the U.S. don't try to make our system work, we're setting a pretty poor example. Besides, in every other area of my life -- church, family, business, etc. -- I don't let disappointment or disillusionment or setbacks make me withdraw into inaction. Rather, I become more committed to make things work.
2. I don't expect any candidate to be perfect. In fact, my theological beliefs tell me that I will always be choosing between the lesser of two evils -- or more positively put, the better of two less-than-perfects. The fact that candidates are willing to endure the hard work, the media scrutiny, the pressure, the responsibility -- of both the election and the office -- can be seen as a sign of something good. After all, if all a candidate cared about was personal peace, personal comfort, or personal wealth, there are a lot better ways to get ahead. So rather than say, "I don't think either candidate is good enough for my vote," I'm more prone to say, "Thank God people are willing to run at all, and thank God we have two candidates as good as the ones we have." We could be choosing between Mugabe and Mugabe.
3. I believe there is much to protest in our current system. But noninvolvement, it seems to me, generally empowers those who are in control. So non-voting becomes a kind of passive vote for the people in power.
4. I believe that a commitment to Christian discipleship should make me a better neighbor, employee, spouse, child, or parent, too. Similarly, I believe that "citizenship in God's kingdom" should make me the best kind of citizen possible, not the worst. Of course, because of my commitment to God's kingdom, I have a broader range of concerns than I would without that commitment. (More on this in the next post.) But I believe that those concerns would in the big scheme of things make me an even more valuable citizen. My civic responsibility would certainly not end with voting, but I can't see why it would stop short of voting either.
One final thought. For those of us who do vote, it is a mistake to think that electing the better of two candidates necessarily guarantees things will get better. (Electing the worst of two candidates, however, can definitely make things worse!) I've lived in the D.C. area most of my life, and it's clear to me from where I live that there are powerful forces that resist the leadership of every new president -- political and economic lobbies, bureaucratic and institutional inertia, plus the frightening ever-present momentum of the military-industrial complex. I agree 100 percent with my friend Jim Wallis who says that what changes society is not just elections, but the wise and ongoing pressure of social movements on elected officials. Politicians are always checking the wind, Jim says -- and our job, through social movements, is to change the wind. And I also agree 100 percent with my friends Shane Claiborne and Chris Haw, who remind us as followers of Jesus that we don't elect our ultimate commander-in-chief. Rather, we discover that he has elected us to join him in his mission. In that light, I believe our vote must ultimately seek to express our fidelity to his good news -- which is (according to Luke) good news for all people, and especially good news for the poor.
Brian McLaren is an author and speaker and serves as Sojourners' board chair. You can learn about his books, music, and other resources at brianmclaren.net.
When one places the July 2008 issue of The New Yorker cover into its historical context, one sees that the magazine has a long history of running covers that can be deemed controversial and at times crass, depending on one's political perspective. As a writer, I tend to side with those who wish to exert their first amendment rights, as long as they are not committing slander, plagiarism, or other illegal offenses. Such are the benefits of living in a democracy. (Let us not forget that no one has called for the execution of anyone associated with this drawing.)
But when editor David Remnick and artist Barry Blitt began defending as "satire" the depiction of the Obamas as a radical Muslim and Black Panther intent on invading the White House, sorry, but I beg to differ. If this particular piece was intended to parody the racist thoughts that people harbor toward Obama, it fell well short of its mark. For starters, if you have to explain repeatedly that "it was just a joke," then you need to refine your material.
While I am sure The New Yorker would never intentionally pen a piece that would benefit McCain, I can see how select groups can use this piece for non-humorous purposes to perpetuate this Muslim myth. After all, according to a Newsweek poll, 12 percent of respondents still believe Obama is a Muslim, despite the fact that he is a practicing Christian. Also, this cartoon could be seen as depicting the anger still felt by some Democrats that Obama is their nominee.
Cartoons can be outrageous in their exaggeration; we draw things that never happened, and never could happen -- but we have a contract with the readers who understand that we're drawing crazy things that convey our own views. The New Yorker's Obama cover fails to keep that contract with readers. Cartoonists don't exaggerate anything just because we have the freedom to do so; we exaggerate to communicate in a way that our readers understand.
Here Cagle offers his solution for how this cartoon could be fixed:
I would have Obama think in a thought balloon, "I must be in the nightmare of some conservative." With that, the scene is shown to be in the mind of someone the cartoonist disagrees with and we have defined the target of the cartoon as crazy conservatives with their crazy dreams.
The controversy over this cartoon does serve to remind us that race and religion continue to be used as roadblocks to prevent any sane and reasoned discussion of the issues that face our country today. We clearly need satirists to deflate the hot air and hooey that permeate the air during every election season. As much as I love The Colbert Report, The Daily Show, and The Onion, my heart yearns for the wisecracking wisdom of George Carlin right about now.
Becky Garrison is senior contributing writer for The Wittenburg Door, the country's largest, oldest, and only religious satire magazine.
I double-checked the sign on the doors nearest me and looked around at the buttons and stickers of the people I was wedging my way through and breathed deeply, relieved to be in the right place. This was confirmed by the impassioned calls from my fellows, "They have defined the issues for too long. It is time for our voices to be heard!" "If people of faith don't come together and work to put him in the White House, they will set the agenda for the next four years, and then it might be too late!" Yes, now is the time, really the time. I nodded my head even more vigorously than before, almost jumped up and down to make up for my earlier perjury. I was about to complete my previously interrupted fist pump when my phone vibrated. I looked at it--a text from an unknown number. I read it.
What? I text back: What?
The reply came back immediately:
I try to clear some room around me with my elbows; my awareness of the crowd diminished to bodies bumping and jostling while I try to get my thumbs to type full sentences on the phone.
Who is this? What are talking about? Are you talking about this? Do you know where I am? I hit send.
Reply:
I am vaguely aware of a swell in the crowd noise, and then it recedes. The jostling and bumping increase, people moving past me, but I don't lift my head. I am focused only on this phone, trying to see through it to the prophet on the other end.
I am here to live out my values, right? This does matter. It can make a difference. I type and hit send with purpose, thinking it will emphasize my point.
Reply:
Is this the text of Isaiah or the texter of Isaiah watching me? My thumbs work resolutely. Are you some sort of stalker? Some radical separatist stalker prophet? Send.
Reply:
I pause. I am thinking. He doesn't wait for my response.
I look up. I look around and see that I am standing alone in front of Charles Colson Jr. High.
I am standing in this big line outside of Charles Colson Jr. High waiting for the doors to open. I say "big line" instead of "long line" because it is more mob-ish, more wide than long. Our senior pastor was right. At a staff meeting he told us, "Get there early. I predict unprecedented involvement in Tuesday's caucus." His political insight as to the large turn-out comes, I am sure, from reading the front page of the USA Today, which reported huge turnouts for all the recent caucuses and primaries. "Unprecedented involvement," he continued, "And I want us to be involved in that involvement."
He had repeated this last line at all five services on Sunday. He had urged the crowds of Maple Lakes Community Church faithful to bring our values and commitments out of the church and onto the streets, which evidently led to the Jr. High.
"Of course, I am not telling you who to caucus for. I trust that the issues which this gospel," (his hand goes to Bible on lectern, and kind of rubs it a little), "is most concerned about will guide your choice. The Spirit is moving believers, like never before, into unprecedented political involvement." Then the line: "and I want us to be involved in that involvement."
So, here I am, shoulder to shoulder with other concerned citizens in a crush. I have to admit that though large crowds of well meaning people usually are a precursor to a panic attack for me, this is exciting. It feels good to be here, to be doing something, to be, well ... involved. I hadn't been to a caucus since I was 18, and that Reverend was running for president.
People all around me were talking passionately about what planks they would propose, or what the most important issues were and why. Most of this I couldn't make out because of the nearly cacophonous fervency of the voices and the loud buzzing in my head that, like a panic attack, usually accompanies my contact with large crowds. What I could catch made my head nod vigorously, ardent statements like, "They have defined the issues for too long. It is time for our voices to be heard!" Yes, that is true, my nodding head agreed. "If people of faith don't come together and work to put the president in the White House, they will set the agenda for the next four years, and then it might be too late!" Yes, now is the time, my nodding head, amen-ed, now joined enthusiastically by the upper half of my body. I was just about to add a fist-pump-supported "Yeah!" when the next declaration made it clear to me what issue these political compatriots were talking about.
My head stopped nodding. I looked around warily. How could I have not seen all the buttons and stickers so garishly adorning these people? I looked at the doors we were waiting to get in. There was a handwritten sign with the party's name on it. I panicked. I looked over to another set of doors nearby and saw a sign with my party's name on it. This wasn't one big mob waiting to get in; this was two big mobs related only by proximity. Both party caucuses were being held at Chuck Colson. The turnout was indeed so large and teeming that what was once, I am sure, two distinct lines had devolved into one nearly indistinguishable mass of political passion.
I ducked my head and made my way to the other side of the crowd as quickly as I could. I had almost accidentally acted on the deeply held convictions of someone else.
As we pass the half-way point of our Jesus for President tour, we remember Jesus' admonition that we be "as wise as serpents and as innocent as doves." There is a lot of momentum around our little campaign of political misfits - from some of the mainstream media and from the dozen cities where we've had thousands of folks come together to plot goodness. And with the momentum comes temptation.
We've been courted by candidates who want an endorsement... or who at least would like us to be "advisers." At first I thought advising a candidate was a subtle euphemism for endorsing them, but I have come to think that there is an important distinction to make between "endorsing" and "advising." I want to be an adviser to every politico that asks, and an endorser of no one but Jesus. Chris and I just joked that he could become an official advisor for Obama, and I'd take McCain just to make sure folks know that we are not partisan. We do take seriously the opportunity to dialogue with political candidates, or anyone else for that matter, especially as many people seem to be rethinking politics as usual. As for the presidential candidates, we're not sure how our counsel will go over, since it may begin with advising those seeking office to melt down the weapons of our arsenal and transform them into things that bring life to the suffering masses of this planet--"beating swords into plows" as the prophets say. But we'll see if anyone takes us up on the offer.
Chris and I end the 2-hour JFP presentation with these words:
We will not be endorsing any candidates. Rather, we will invite them to endorse the political manifesto of our Commander-in-Chief and to join the peculiar upside-down Kingdom that blesses the poor and the peacemakers...
Our central allegience is to God's Kingdom, and we invite everything else in the world to align itself with the norms of that upside-down Kingdom. That is what we endorse, and we stand behind everything and everyone that moves us closer to that - the coming of God's Kingdom "on earth as it is in heaven." And we get in the way of everything that contradicts and works against God's Kingdom - interrupting injustice with grace.
In post-Religious Right America, we want to learn from the mistakes of the generation before us (so we don't repeat them) - one of which was telling Christians who to vote for. Rather than spoon-feeding people answers, we hope to stir up the right questions - and trust that the Spirit will lead us as we "work out our salvation with fear and trembling." One of the places the religious right went wrong was telling people what to do rather than inviting them to think for themselves, with the help of the Spirit of God (in fact, it even seems a real lack of faith to to coerce or convince people to do exactly what we want them to... as if the Spirit is not at work in them). That's where Jesus shines - he stirs up questions and tells stories that unveil truth, rather than drafting a careful declaration or endorsement that's going to solve everything wrong in the world.
Folks come out of our JFP shows with all kinds of ideas churning. Some have shared that they are inspired to start an adoption agency to try and decrease the number of abortions. U.S. soldiers have said they are becoming conscientious objectors or are seeking discharge. Some folks have said they are going to organize for one of the candidates, and others have said they are going to write in "Jesus" on Nov. 4. To all of it we say, "Yes!" Thank God the Spirit is at work, and is renewing minds and imaginations in the Church, so that we might follow the command of Romans: "Do not conform to the patterns of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind."
Reporters often ask folks leaving our presentations funny questions like: "Young evangelicals are the swing vote in this election... has this evening affected how you are going to vote in November?" I heard one person say beautifully, "That's the wrong question... the real question is how can we become the change we want to see in the world TODAY and not just hope that every four years we can elect politicians to change the world for us." May it be so. May we continue to become the change we want to see in the Church and in the world. Enough donkeys and elephants - Long live the Lamb.
As a former North Carolinian, I have very mixed feelings regarding the death of Senator Jesse Helms. When my late grandfather Roy B. Clogston was the athletic director of NC State from 1948-69, he became good friends with Helms. At that time, Helms was the general manager of WRAL-TV in Raleigh, and they worked on the contracts to televise NC State basketball games. So, he remembered Helms fondly and often contributed to his campaign. While I never met Helms, I learned from my grandfather that even Helms possessed a soft side.
I didn't realize the full extent of Helms' impact until I moved to New York City after graduating from college. As soon as people found out I was a North Carolinian, I would brace myself for the inevitable barrage of questions as though I was somehow responsible personally for Helms' hooey. At the time, I was a member of the New York Young Republicans, so everyone thought that meant I supported all Republicans, including Jesse. No way. No how. Even when he would make a valid point, his vitriol and venom made me cringe. No wonder New Yorkers thought we were all hicks and hillbillies. My embarrassment that my home state continued to support Helms culminated in '90 when the Harvey Gantt v. Jesse Helms campaign as managed by Dick Morris set a new low in racist campaign ads. From that moment forward, I vowed never to support any candidate who would hire Morris. Hence, I shook my head in disbelief when those who campaigned against Helms were silent during Morris' management of Bill Clinton's '96 re-election campaign.
My prayers are with those who like my grandfather had fond memories of Helms and are mourning the loss of their loved one. But I pray that his passing marks the end of an era in political history that we choose not to repeat.
Addendum: And yes, I celebrate Helms' joining forces with Bono to fight AIDS in Africa. Throughout his long career, I found myself in agreement with him on several occasions. However, even if we were on the same side of an issue ideologically, I had to distance myself from Helms due to his inflammatory rhetoric.
Becky Garrison will be featured in the upcoming documentary The Ordinary Radicals, which will be released in September 2008.
July 4 weekend! Now this is a holiday! We won't have another one until Labor Day, but that doesn't even matter right now. What matters is that this is the last day of a glorious three days of blessed interruption. Thank goodness for all such favors.
I preach today -- four times, in fact -- at an Episcopal church in Ponte Vedra, Florida, where Sam and I are taking a few days of extended vacation. I use the word "preach" loosely, for I am not, and never shall be, a preacher. I'm a storyteller, which is a much humbler occupation ... not to mention a much more pleasant thing to be, but that's another issue entirely.
Storytellers like me, especially those in religion, often get asked to preach -- or "cover for us," as the wording usually goes -- during the summer months when clergy, for very legitimate reasons, want to get away and rest like the rest of us. So today, I am covering, and today I will tell some tales and spin some yarns, all of them true and all of them biblical, some of them shocking. The Bible, when we treat it as it is and not as what we wish it to be sanitized into, is full of shocking stories.
But there is one story I shan't tell today in the pulpit because I want to tell it here instead. Actually, it is not a story per se. The story part is simply to say that I, who loves poetry but cannot write it with any adequacy, love in particular the poetry of James Weldon Johnson. Poet beyond all telling, Johnson was by trade himself a preacher, and much of his poetry had Christian themes or sensibilities implicit in it. Yet like all good poetry, though it was written almost a century ago, it still sings in all our ears. One of Johnson's pieces, in particular, rings in my heart this July 4:
Listen, Lord - A Prayer
O Lord, we come this morning Knee-bowed and body-bent Before thy throne of grace. O Lord -- this morning -- Bow our hearts beneath our knees, And our knees in the lonesome valley. We come this morning -- Like empty pitchers to a full fountain, With no merits of our own. O Lord -- open up a new window of heaven And lean out far over the battlements of glory And listen this morning.
You see, my heart is fingering Johnson's Prayer like a rosary this July 4 weekend because in this summer of 2008, in this country, within our part of God's world, you and I will further the process, almost to conclusion, of making some major decisions. It's a holiday today, and time to play. But tomorrow begins the long pull toward fall and elections.
Our knees are in the Lonesome Valley, Lord. Lean out over the battlements of glory and listen this morning as we pray.
I was in Zimbabwe from June 21 to 28. I traveled by bus, and my experience is typical of what has become the norm for road travel between South Africa and Zimbabwe -- long queues and delays at the border posts and police-controlled roadblocks.
Almost all vehicles going to Zimbabwe are loaded to maximum capacity with goods from South Africa -- mostly basic foodstuff. With ever-rising inflation currently at 3 million percent, the Zimbabwean dollar cannot keep up, and the government keeps printing higher denominations of money -- for example, Z$1 billion, 5 billion, 400 million, etc. It's mind-boggling! US $100 = Z $1 trillion.
Just to give you an indication of how this translates into daily life, one banana is Z$1 billion, bread is 5 billion, and one sweet (candy) is Z$400 million, and prices rise every day! Salaries can't keep up with inflation, and that is why many Zimbabweans are economic refugees in neighbouring countries and overseas. Everyone is a billionaire and struggling to survive!
It is estimated that about half the population is dependent on food aid. This creates a situation where food becomes a political tool. Add to this the ongoing political crisis and HIV/AIDS, and you have a struggle at every level of life -- physical, mental, spiritual, psychological, social, political, and economic. Out of these multiple crises new forms of social networking have emerged, enabling many to survive and maintain a semblance of normal life. As I stood in line at the border posts, there were several groups of women traders. These networks of traders support families and enable communities to survive. They and many others are the true heroines and heroes.
People did not talk much because of fear but there was a guarded hope that perhaps the elections would bring a change. The withdrawal by the opposition took many of us by surprise but it soon became apparent that the escalating violence and suppression of the opposition made it impossible to have free and fair elections. The government went ahead with the elections. The outcome was predictable. As things stand now it feels like we have come full circle, back to square one! There is talk of possible negotiations between government and the opposition. Should such negotiations take place, there will be a need for mediators to guide the process. Please pray for the appointment of visionary and courageous mediators committed to justice and democracy who will provide clear guidelines and frameworks for the negotiations. Also continue to pray that the ongoing international, regional, and continental pressure on Zimbabwe would continue until a solution is found.
I want to end with an event that coincided with the week of the elections. I trace my interest in connecting events to my love of history. When I was in high school, one of the questions that appeared regularly in history exams required us to describe and connect the events that led to a particular war or change, etc., and so I got used to stringing up events. The event last week was the celebration of Nelson Mandela's 90th birthday! The unseen hand of history provided a critique in the form of the person of Mandela, his leadership, and his commitment to the values of freedom and democracy. It was, in Christian language, a "prophetic birthday!"
Nontando Hadebe, a former Sojourners intern, is originally from Zimbabwe and is now pursuing graduate studies in theology in South Africa.
Soccer moms, NASCAR dads, and now holy hipsters have been touted by political pundits and the mainstream media as the group du jour that political candidates must court in order to win the coveted presidential prize. Using select books and blogs, they conclude that these missional millennials have abandoned the political party of their parents and will be casting their ballots for Obama come November. However, as Jim Wallis wrote earlier this year, "This doesn't mean young evangelicals are automatically becoming Democrats (and I don't think they should). It does mean that their agenda is broader and deeper, no longer beholden to a single partisan ideology."
Once again, the Holy Spirit has a way of transcending conventional wisdom, thus shining forth the power of the risen Christ. For example, when CNN covered the Jesus for President tour, the reporter tried to draw the conclusion that this Christian crowd blesses Barack Obama. When I caught Shane Claiborne, Chris Haw, and friends in New York City, yes, some religious progressives present chose to dance to the beat of a Democratic drummer. But Shane & Co. preached and sang to a different tune, proclaiming, "No more donkeys. Long live the lamb." Claiborne notes, "This is not about going left or right, this is about going deeper and trying to understand together. Rather than endorse candidates, we ask them to endorse what is at the heart of Jesus, and that is the poor or the peacemakers. When we see that, then we'll get behind them."
Citing examples where both Democrats and Republicans used Jesus as a political pawn to advance their own agendas, Shane & Co. remind us that we are electing politicos, not prophets. My observations covering American Christianity echo these concerns. Whenever religious leaders choose to walk into any party's campaign headquarters, they risk ending up bowlegged with a bad case of the spiritual rickets.
The Jesus for President tour reminded us all that transformative change will be contingent not on who we vote for Nov. 4, but how we live our lives on Nov. 3 and 5.
This sentiment for a change that transcends partisan politics continues to be echoed by activists such as Tim Kumfer, who stated in a previous God's Politics blog post that, "Widespread social change will not come merely from the election of a 'change candidate,' but from the movements of nonconforming minorities, faith communities, and others, whose lives take the shape of servanthood and whose voices are joined with those on the opposite side of the power equation. This is our real work, to which we must be committed for more than one day in November."
When Diana Butler Bass spoke at the American Academy of Religion's 2007 annual meeting, she reflected that she finds "vitality in those churches who are tapping into a global spirit that infuses religion, politics, and the culture at large, transcending organizations and individuals" [emphasis added]. In The Great Emergence, Phyllis Tickle compares this period of massive upheaval to other reformations, such as the Great Reformation, the Great Schism, and the Great Transformation.
During this time of transformation, how do we avoid being seduced by media attention and power into serving an earthly king instead of our king in heaven? I cover Christian carnage for a living and it pains me when people who I know have good intentions end up advancing their own activist agenda instead of proclaiming the good news. In our quest to practice the radically inclusive politics of Jesus, Tickle keenly observes the need to navigate through these rocky religious waters, "prayerfully and carefully. As is true with any major social or political or religious upheaval, how we can or should navigate it all is not always clear on a day-to-day basis."
One small change that's become evident to me is the need for Christian gatherings to more accurately reflect the body of Christ. For example, I've lost track of the social justice events I've attended these past few years that bore a closer resemblance to Ivy League college reunions or a local Democratic party pow-wow than the kingdom of God.
What keeps us from including the person we see sleeping on the church steps or whom we serve at the soup kitchen? Why can't we create space for those who differ with our political beliefs? Jesus brought together tax collectors, zealots, prostitutes, and the occasional Jewish religious leader. Heck, he even converted the centurion who stood guard during his crucifixion. Now that's a Christian conference I'd like to cover. If we claim Jesus as our Lord, shouldn't our gatherings accurately reflect the ministry espoused by the radical rule-breaking, love-making Jesus? After all, he is our king and we are his kingdom here on earth.
Becky Garrison will be featured in the documentary The Ordinary Radicals. Also, her interview with Phyllis Tickle, which focuses on Tickle's forthcoming book The Great Emergence, will appear in the August 2008 issue of Sojourners.
In 2000 I was part of a small group of religious leaders invited to Austin, Texas, to discuss a new White House faith-based initiative with George W. Bush before he came to Washington, D.C., as president. I was an early supporter of the initiative because I believed that partnerships between the faith community and government in alleviating poverty were both necessary and appropriate within the framework of the Constitution. For two years I was in regular conversation with the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives, under the leadership of John DiIulio and, later, Jim Towey, and Sojourners and Call to Renewal collaborated with the new office on a number of dialogues and initiatives. But my relationship with the White House ended after my public criticism of President Bush's path to war in Iraq. Yet I continued to support the idea and promise of the faith-based initiative.
But I was disappointed with the corresponding lack of policy commitment to reduce poverty by the Bush administration, and the eventual politicizing of the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives along partisan lines. Instead of a partnership, this initiative became a substitute for necessary public policies attacking the causes and consequences of poverty within the United States. Despite this failure, my commitment to public-private partnership involving the faith community has never diminished.
I have hoped that both presidential candidates would re-commit the nation to this necessary and positive vision of partnership between the public sector and the faith community on the goals of poverty reduction. Today, Barack Obama outlined his plan to engage faith-based and community organizations from the White House in order to create "the foundation of a new project of American renewal." Obama affirmed the idea of a faith-based initiative on the solid foundations of both real partnership and the necessary commitment of government to sound public policy to reduce poverty. Prior to today, the danger was that Democrats might revert to old secular biases and end the faith-based program altogether, preferring only public sector approaches as the remedy to poverty instead of also forging vital partnerships with civil society that include the faith community. It was good to see that the failures of the Bush faith-based initiative have not deterred Obama from proposing a robust vision of his own.
The key to today's proposal is that it is based on public and faith-based partnership, and will not become another replacement for sound public policy. To truly be successful, this initiative must utilize the unique resources and identity of the faith community, while at the same time recognizing the indispensible role that government and public policy must play in tackling the root causes of poverty. Obama's proposals also contain necessary protections for religious liberty, pluralism, and constitutional safeguards.
This initiative has the potential to unite people across partisan lines. I truly hope that a recommitment to engaging the valuable role of faith-based organizations doesn't get mired in the endless political debates of the past while God's concerns for the weak and vulnerable get ignored.
James Dobson, of Focus on the Family Action, and his senior vice president of government and public policy, Tom Minnery, used their "Focus on the Family" radio show to criticize Barack Obama's understanding of Christian faith. In the show, they describe Obama as "deliberately distorting the Bible," "dragging biblical understanding through the gutter," "willfully trying to confuse people," and having a "fruitcake interpretation of the Constitution."
The clear purpose of the show was to attack Barack Obama. On the show, Dobson says of himself, "I'm not a reverend. I'm not a minister. I'm not a theologian. I'm not an evangelist. I'm a psychologist. I have a Ph.D. in child development." Child psychologists don't insert themselves into partisan politics in the regular way that James Dobson does and has over many years as one of the premier leaders of the Religious Right. He has spoken about how often he talked to Republican leaders -- Karl Rove, administration strategists, and even President Bush himself. This year he tried to influence the outcome of the Republican primary by saying he would never vote for John McCain or the Republicans if they nominated him, then reversed himself and said he would vote after all but didn't say for whom. But why should America care about how a child psychologist votes?
James Dobson is insinuating himself into this presidential campaign, and his attacks against his fellow Christian, Barack Obama, should be seriously scrutinized. And because the basis for his attack on Obama is the speech the Illinois senator gave at our Sojourners/Call to Renewal event in 2006 (for the record, we also had Democrat Hillary Clinton and Republicans Rick Santorum and Sam Brownback speak that year), I have decided to respond to Dobson's attacks. In most every case they are themselves clear distortions of what Obama said in that speech. I was there for the speech; Dobson was not.
I haven't endorsed a candidate, but I do defend them when they are attacked in disingenuous ways, and this is one of those cases. You can read Obama's two-year-old speech, [audio link] which was widely publicized at the time, and you can see that Dobson either didn't understand it or is deliberately distorting it. There are two major problems with Dobson's attack on Obama.
First, Dobson and Minnery's language is simply inappropriate for religious leaders to use in an already divisive political campaign. We can agree or disagree on both biblical and political viewpoints, but our language should be respectful and civil, not attacking motives and beliefs.
Second, and perhaps most important, is the role of religion in politics. Dobson alleges that Obama is saying:
I [Dobson] can't seek to pass legislation, for example, that bans partial-birth abortion because there are people in the culture who don't see that as a moral issue. And if I can't get everyone to agree with me, it is undemocratic to try to pass legislation that I find offensive to the Scripture. ... What he's trying to say here is unless everybody agrees, we have no right to fight for what we believe.
Contrary to Dobson's charge, Obama strongly defended the right and necessity of people of faith in bringing their moral agenda to the public square, and he was specifically critical of many on the left and in his own Democratic Party for being uncomfortable with religion in politics.
Obama said that religion is and always has been a fundamental and absolutely essential source of morality for the nation, but he also said that "religion has no monopoly on morality," which is a point I often make. The United States is not the Christian theocracy that people like James Dobson seem to think it should be. Political appeals, even if rooted in religious convictions, must be argued on moral grounds rather than as sectarian religious demands -- so that the people (citizens), whether religious or not, may have the capacity to hear and respond. Religious convictions must be translated into moral arguments, which must win the political debate if they are to be implemented. Religious people don't get to win just because they are religious. They, like any other citizens, have to convince their fellow citizens that what they propose is best for the common good -- for all of us, not just for the religious.
Instead of saying that Christians must accept the "the lowest common denominator of morality," as Dobson accused Obama of suggesting, or that people of faith shouldn't advocate for the things their convictions suggest, Obama was saying the exact opposite -- that Christians should offer their best moral compass to the nation but then engage in the kind of democratic dialogue that religious pluralism demands. Martin Luther King Jr. perhaps did this best, with his Bible in one hand and the Constitution in the other.
One more note. I personally disagree with how both the Democrats and Republicans have treated the moral issue of abortion and am hopeful that the movement toward a serious commitment for dramatic abortion reduction will re-shape both parties' language and positions. But that is the only "bloody notion" that Dobson mentions. What about the horrible bloody war in Iraq that Dobson apparently supports, or the 30,000 children who die each day globally of poverty and disease that Dobson never mentions, or the genocides in Darfur and other places? In making abortion the single life issue in politics and elections, leaders from the Religious Right like Dobson have violated the "consistent ethic of life" that we find, for example, in Catholic social teaching.
<p>Dobson has also fought unsuccessfully to keep the issue of the environment and climate change, which many also now regard as a "life issue," off the evangelical agenda. Older Religious Right leaders are now being passed by a new generation of young evangelicals who believe that poverty, "creation care" of the environment, human trafficking, human rights, pandemic diseases such as HIV/AIDS, and the fundamental issues of war and peace are also "religious" and "moral" issues and now a part of a much wider and deeper agenda. That new evangelical agenda is a deep threat to Dobson and the power wielded by the Religious Right for so long. It puts many evangelical votes in play this election year, especially among a new generation who are no longer captive to the Religious Right. Perhaps that is the real reason for Dobson's attack on Barack Obama.
The fact that an African American and a woman each ran so strongly in the long primary season of this election year speaks very well of the country. Having two “firsts” competing for the presidency, Senators Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, makes this a very historic political year. But it was perhaps unfortunate that the two firsts ended up running against each other. After a hard-fought campaign, there inevitably remain some hard feelings among the supporters of both candidates, but especially among many women, who were the core of Clinton’s campaign.
Many of them feel she was treated badly by the press, with many instances of overtly sexist attitudes and commentaries that would never have been directed at another male candidate. I, for one, think they are right -- there were many media comments about Senator Clinton that were sexist and that would never have been used against a man. Indeed, there are often regular comments in the media about women that would simply not be acceptable if similar things were said about men or even ethnic minorities. As a culture, sexist assumptions, attitudes, and language are still far too acceptable to us.
Race is a factor in this political year too, and will undoubtedly appear in the fall campaign. The fact is that we were not going to transcend the realities of either race or gender in this election year because the demons are simply too great and run too deep in our society. But the fact that an African American and a woman did so well, despite the racism and sexism that is still with us in America, is a cause for grateful celebration. And now, as many have said, it’s time for some healing.
While I agree with those who saw sexism in the primary political coverage, I also agree with most political commentators who don’t think it was the ultimate reason Senator Clinton came short of becoming the Democratic Party nominee. I won’t rehearse the now commonly agreed-upon analysis of some of the Clinton campaign’s mistakes and miscalculations or how the Obama campaign ran a little smarter strategy, but, clearly, several strategic considerations were decisive factors.
It is also clear that this political year will be a “change” election. All the candidates, in both parties, ended up running on the country’s clear desire for a change in direction after eight years of the Bush administration. Barack Obama made change the core of his message, and John McCain has been a beneficiary of that same mood in the Republican Party. And while Hillary Clinton was also clearly a change candidate, as the first woman with a real chance to become president, she was still a Clinton, which also made her a “restoration” candidate as well as a change candidate. That ultimately hurt her this election year.
But after her gracious and magnanimous speech endorsing Barack Obama this weekend, the tremendous and historical accomplishments of her presidential campaign are clear for all to see and celebrate. Regardless of whether everyone agrees with her positions on every issue or whether they liked all of her campaign tactics, a clear breakthrough for women in America has taken place. It will now be much more acceptable, possible, and “normal” for women to compete for every political office in the land, and that fact will open up even more doors for women in virtually every area of public life and leadership in this country. And for that, we all have a great deal to thank Hillary Clinton and her loyal supporters for. Marie Wilson, founder and president of the White House Project, a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization that aims to advance women's leadership, wrote this weekend in The Washington Post about
this country's next generation of female leaders -- women of all ages and persuasions who have been searching for the means and encouragement to step into positions of leadership in their communities; women of all political affiliations who thank Hillary Clinton for making the impossible finally appear possible.
Many moving things have been said about how so many little girls now believe that they can be anything they want to be because of Clinton’s impressive campaign. But I want to also point out the impact on little boys, like my own two young sons. They have grown up with a mom as a priest, an ordained clergywoman who they have often seen preaching, speaking, presiding over the Eucharist, and doing weddings and baptisms. The leadership role of women in the church is simply normal and expected for them—it’s what mom does. Clinton’s presidential bid has had a very similar effect on both of them.
My 9-year-old son, Luke, considers Hillary a “friend,” having met her at a New Year’s weekend retreat that both of our families attended. Hillary very graciously sends him little personal notes to congratulate him on his Little League baseball successes. It's a wonderful gesture that utterly defies the harsh commentaries on her style that she sadly so often receives. At the CNN candidate forum on faith, values, and poverty that Sojourners co-sponsored last June, Luke got to meet her again and told the senator privately, “Hillary, I can’t vote, but if I could, I would vote for you.” She beamed the biggest smile back to my son and said, “Oh Luke, that means so much to me!” Luke has remained totally faithful to Hillary during the primary political season, proudly wearing a Clinton button on his safety patrol belt, and was one of her disappointed supporters when she finally had to concede. Five-year-old Jack voted just the way his big brother did in their D.C. public school primary, resisting the Obama landslide.
My boys, like lots of little girls and boys, now believe that a woman running for president is normal, possible, and to be expected, as they do for an African-American candidate. Luke is looking forward to the day when a black woman will be able to run. “Wouldn’t that be cool, Dad?” he says. It surely would, and for that we have both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton to thank.
Here in Manhattan, the city streets hum with hope following the announcement of the first African American to be nominated for president by a major political party. According to news reports, similar scenarios are taking place across the world. As we celebrate this historical moment in electoral politics, Sarah Cunningham, author of Dear Church: Letters from a Disillusioned Generation, offers this cautionary tale to her fellow Christians:
When we market ourselves as the hope of the world, or when we believe that other humans hold the hope of the world for us, without proper acknowledgement of Christ as our source, we foster disillusionment.
So how do we keep this hope alive should one’s preferred candidate not win the coveted presidential prize? My prayer is that regardless of who resides at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, we can keep singing a hopeful tune. As I've reported elsewhere on the blog, I keep seeing glimpses of the kingdom here on earth that are led not by polticos but by ordinary radicals who are transformed by the words of Jesus Christ. My buddy Shane Claiborne reminds us all, "No matter who is elected on Nov. 4, what matters is how we live our lives as faithful Christians on Nov. 3 and 5."
Sara Cunningham concurs with Shane’s assessment:
We Christians were never the hope. Yes, we were and are carriers of the hope. But we ourselves are only reflections—often dim reflections—of the hope we internalize: Jesus Christ.
In his latest book, Surprised by Hope, N.T. Wright explores how we as Christians can implement this hope here on earth. He reminds us:
The kingdom will come as the church, energized by the Spirit, goes out into the world, vulnerable, suffering, praising, praying, misunderstood, misjudged, vindicated, celebrating: always—as Paul puts it in one of his letters—bearing the body of the dying of Jesus so that the life of Jesus may also be displayed.
So, as we see hopeful signs all around us, let us remember that as Christians our declaration of hope lies ultimately with the Risen Christ.
Becky Garrison will be featured in the CD 2007 Soularize in a Box, along with N.T. Wright, Rita Brock, Richard Rohr, Brenann Manning, Ian Cron, and others. Check out The Ooze (www.theooze.com) for more information.
When the historic legislative milestone of the Voting Rights Act finally passed in 1965, I was still a young teenager. Until then, black people in America didn’t have the right to vote. And until the Civil Rights Act passed the previous year in 1964, black Americans had to drink from separate drinking fountains, eat at separate lunch counters, ride at the back of buses, and watch movies only from the balconies of theaters. Then there was all the violence. I remember a civil rights worker from my hometown of Detroit, named Viola Liuzzo, who traveled to the South in order to help black people win the right to vote for the first time. She was murdered for doing so.
I was still in the U.K. on a book tour Tuesday night, just having finished speaking to a forum at the British Parliament with ministers from all three parties about the relationship between faith and politics. Then I stayed up until 4 a.m. to watch Barack Obama claim the nomination of the Democratic Party for president of the United States. It was my birthday the next day, and I recalled those days when the relationship between faith and politics for many black and a few white Christians was that if you stood up for civil rights -- especially the right to vote for black Americans -- it could get you killed. So I was not only blurry-eyed but also more than a little teary-eyed as I watched a young black man announce that he was ready to run for president of the United States, and for most of America to assume that he had a chance to win.
Race was the issue that led to my own confrontation with the church that raised me. It was my “converting issue,” though the conversion led me out of the white church of my childhood, not into the church. A church elder bluntly told me one night that “Christianity has nothing to do with racism. That’s political and our faith is personal.” I was only about 15, but it was the night I think I left, in my head and my heart. And a couple years later, I was gone all together.
The little evangelical church that my parents had started and that was my second home was simply wrong about race -- completely wrong. Race was the issue that fundamentally shaped my early social conscience. What I saw in Detroit and in the country I had grown up to love seemed fundamentally wrong. I learned there were two Detroits and two Americas, one white and one black. And it seemed contrary to the religion my family had taught me to treat people in a fundamentally different way because of the color of their skin. But the church didn’t agree and we parted company for most of my student years, with me only coming back to faith after a fresh encounter with the radical gospel of the New Testament. I came back with the realization that God is indeed personal, but never private, and exploring what that means has shaped the rest of my life.
So watching Obama, a black man, win the nomination of a major party for the presidency brought back a virtual flood of memories and feelings. That Barack is a friend of 10 years made it all the more personal. This morning I heard several interviews on NPR with black Americans about their response to Obama’s nomination. One older woman said, “A black man running for president, did you hear what just I said? A black man running for president of the United States ….” She just kept repeating the words, and succinctly captured my own personal feelings.
Yes, it is truly historic, and the U.K. newspaper headlines captured that sentiment as did papers around the world. Nothing could change the image of America around the world more than this. But it is more than historic; it is very personal for many of my generation. A new generation just sees this as natural -- he’s an inspirational leader who happens to be black, which matters little to them. But for my generation -- I’m dating myself now -- this is a transformational moment, one we didn't think would come in our lifetimes. Race was the issue that changed us, shaped us, determined our path, and even defined the meaning of our faith. Now a black man is running for president of the United States. Amazing grace.
What's at issue in the SBC, and in the larger evangelical community (and, we could add, in the mainline and Roman Catholic communities as well), isn't whether faith is political. Nobody (or almost nobody) is arguing for dropping the second half of the great commandment -- so that "loving God" is about faith and is central, but "loving neighbor" is about politics and is therefore marginal. Nobody is trying to divide the world into a spiritual realm that is personal and private and about faith, versus a secular realm that is social and public and about politics. Nobody is trying to say that faith has nothing to say about how people organize and govern themselves - how they seek justice, how they express kindness, how they walk humbly with God and in harmony with themselves, their neighbors, their enemies, and God's creation as a whole.
On both sides of these tensions -- this is worth emphasizing once more, to the point of redundancy -- we're agreed that faith relates to all of life, that faith is, as Jim Wallis wisely and repeatedly reminds us, both personal and social, both private and public. Nobody (or almost nobody) disagrees on this anymore -- thanks be to God.
The problem comes when "politics" comes to mean "dirty politics" or "partisan politics" or "narrow, wedge-issue, litmus-test, culture-wars politics." So when people suggest that caring for the environment is not a political issue, what they really mean (I think) is that it shouldn't be a partisan issue, a wedge issue, a left-right issue. Rather, they're saying that as followers of Christ, we shouldn't begin with the question, "What would Karl Rove (or James Carville) do?" We should ask the more obvious and Christian question. We should start with faith in our Creator and then move to politics in a spirit of justice, kindness, and humility -- not start with partisan politics and use faith to buttress it on the one hand, and not reduce faith to the private, personal realm so it has nothing to do with politics on the other.
So, perhaps when we read articles and hear discussions on faith and politics, we should develop the habit of raising this question, "Before we go any further, what do you mean by politics?"
A recent New York Times story, "Taking Their Faith, but Not Their Politics, to the People," highlights the challenge faced by followers of Christ who seek to integrate their faith with all aspects of life, including political life in a democracy. The article suggests to me a question that we should raise more frequently when people address "faith and politics," or "faith versus politics," namely: "What do you mean by politics?"
The article begins and ends by recounting a mini-culture war going on in Missouri. It may be no surprise that the conflict involves Southern Baptists, who are known for their willingness to plunge headlong into battle for what they believe is right (in both senses of the word). What's surprising, though, is that the battle isn't between Baptists and secular-humanist-postmodernist-liberal-heathens outside, but rather with fellow Baptists.
It turns out that some members of a SBC-affiliated new congregation called the Journey gather on occasion to discuss theology and life with their unchurched friends in (gasp) a pub. Some fellow Baptists see this as the first step on a slippery slope that may lead to alcoholism, drug addiction, fornication, and (I'm partially joking here) maybe even Democratic and Obama-voting tendencies, so they have agreed not to fund new churches like the Journey in the future.
The article mentions another fissure in the SBC structure. This one pits a 25-year-old graduate of Liberty University - and son of a former SBC president - against Richard Land, SBC giant in public affairs. This David-Goliath conflict concerns not beer but the environment, and whether Southern Baptists have been too timid in addressing environmental issues. Jonathan Merritt, starring as David, took a stand on behalf of the planet and has drawn about 250 others (and counting) to stand with him. Land, seemingly convinced that environmental regulations are presently a greater threat to humanity than environmental degradation, has criticized Merritt and friends, and has in fact persuaded some of the original signors to un-sign.
Dean Inserra, 27-year-old pastor of the Well in Tallahassee, Florida - another SBC church more in the tradition of David than Goliath - offers his assessment of the tension: "There is so much resistance to the environmental initiative because it is a threat to the right-wing agenda that has crept into the Southern Baptist Convention." Then he raises this question: "How is taking care of God's creation a political issue? Since I am pro-life, I am pro-environment."
Inserra's comment, along with others in the Times article, shows how the word "political" is used in different ways. The article's description of "a new generation that refuses to put politics at the center of its faith and rejects identification with the religious right" similarly shows the ambiguity of the word "politics." Consider the previous statement in light of what follows:
They say they are tired of the culture wars. They say they do not want the test of their faith to be the fight against gay rights. They say they want to broaden the traditional evangelical anti-abortion agenda to include care for the poor, the environment, immigrants and people with H.I.V., according to experts on younger evangelicals and the young people themselves.
In this light, "politics" means culture wars, litmus tests, anti-gay rights, narrow agendas. Is that a good definition? If we define politics more intentionally - as how groups of people organize and govern themselves - then the NYT article is mistitled and its repeated pitting of faith versus politics obscures the issue.
Four years ago, Call to Renewal conducted a 12-day "Rolling to Overcome Poverty" bus tour to say that poverty was a religious and electoral issue. Despite our best efforts, the word was rarely spoken in either campaign, or in the presidential debates. This year, it's already different.
On Wednesday, John Edwards endorsed Barack Obama, which, of course, made headlines across the country. But at the Grand Rapids, Michigan, rally where the two men spoke, something even more important happened. Both spoke eloquently about the reality of poverty in the United States, and both reiterated their commitment to cut poverty in half in 10 years in the U.S. Obama pledged again to make that a central feature of his administration if he is elected.
Edwards said:
There is another wall that divides us. It's the moral shame of 37 million of our own people who wake up in poverty every single day. In a nation of our wealth, to have millions of Americans who work every single day and still can't pay their electric bill and pay for their food at the same time. There are mothers out there working two jobs every day to try to keep their kids from going to bed hungry. There are men and women who have worked hard all their lives, so that they can try to buy a home. And they're living in a tent city, because they got nowhere to go. This is not OK.
Obama responded:
Poverty isn't an issue that's talked about on the news or in Washington. It's not always the kind of issue that polls well. But John Edwards decided to talk about it anyway. He decided to center his campaign around it. He came up with new ideas to solve it. He pushed the rest of us to talk about it and debate it. And he did it, not because it was popular, but because it was right. Well, it is still right. It is still worth debating. It is still worth talking about. ... We're going to have to change things around, because we need to lift up every American out of poverty.
The other candidates have also spoken strongly about poverty.
Hillary Clinton, in the recent Compassion Forum, said:
… in my Judeo-Christian faith tradition, in both the Old and the New Testament, the incredible demands that God places on us and that the prophets ask of us, and that Christ called us to respond to on behalf of the poor are unavoidable. And it's always been curious to me how our debate about religion in America too often misses that. You know, his holiness, the pope, is going to be coming to America next week, and he's been a strong voice on behalf of what we must do to deal with poverty, and deal with injustice, and deal with what is truly our obligations toward those who are the least among us.
And John McCain, on the anniversary of Martin Luther King's death:
Some people lament privately, others are brave enough to take their call for change to the public arena. Martin Luther King III has done his father's legacy proud this week by courageously insisting that our nation's next leader do something about the poverty that ensnares over 36 million of our citizens. I will answer his call, and tell him and the American people today that I will make the eradication of poverty a top priority of the McCain Administration.
The media still sees everything in terms of the political horse race, of course, but the issue of poverty has now become a central one in the ongoing campaign. And for us, as people of faith, it's raising the moral issues that will be our focus during this election season, and poverty will be a key one.
This weekend Zimbabwe's opposition party announced that it would take part in the next round of presidential "elections." Violence, harassment, and intimidation of unarmed citizens continue as part of the government's preparation for the "elections." In my understanding, there are three basic rules that qualify a process to be described as a legitimate election (election 101!):
Elections are part of a democratic package that includes freedom, democracy, and peace. Without this package or context, elections cannot be expected to achieve their intended function -- namely, to elect a party or candidate of choice.
Elections presuppose political maturity, which understands that to participate in an election a party could:
a. Win or
b. lose but
c. cannot be both (a) and (b)
Acceptance of results is part of the election process. In the event of losing a party should not resort to political tantrums and attack the winner. This is a serious violation of the first election principle above and therefore constitutes a violation of human rights.
In the case of Zimbabwe, none of the above apply. Despite these serious constraints the opposition and the people are determined to use this window of opportunity to fight for democracy. The international media has played a significant role in ensuring that Zimbabwe is on the "big screen," visible for all to see. This effort needs to be supported by active participation by the international community in the "election" process as it happens. This support is critical. Violence cannot be allowed to triumph as a political tool that overrides the election process. This is our prayer and plea for support.
Nontando Hadebe, a former Sojourners intern, is originally from Zimbabwe and is now pursuing graduate studies in theology in South Africa.
No two events in this political season stand in starker contrast than last night's ABC Democratic debate and last Sunday's CNN Compassion Forum.
Rather unbelievably, ABC anchors used 50 minutes of airtime attacking Democratic candidates on tabloid issues, including a line of questioning from George Stephanopoulos lifted from right-wing pundit Sean Hannity. Almost as an afterthought, the final questions turned toward actual issues including the economy and war. The ABC Web site was flooded with complaints from viewers—both Clinton and Obama supporters—calling the debate "awful" and "asinine," and the live audience heckled and booed the moderators. In Philadelphia's Constitution Center, ABC devolved into sensationalist TV, making for an embarrassing irony between inane content and an impressive setting.
Just four days ago, hundreds of religious leaders gathered at Messiah College in Pennsylvania for the Compassion Forum aired by CNN and sponsored by Faith and Public Life. At that event (I was in the audience), both the moderators and audience members addressed the Democratic candidates with serious questions ranging from personal beliefs to theological concerns - such as the problem of evil and moral issues of poverty, torture, AIDS in Africa, abortion, and global warming. The Forum was intelligent, offering each of the candidates 40 minutes to discuss genuine issues that have an impact on people's lives and the human future. Those in attendance appreciated the thoughtfulness and depth of both Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama, as demonstrated by warm applause and enthusiasm for the opinions and policies outlined by the candidates.
At the end of the forum, I was talking with a friend, Professor Shaun Casey of Wesley Theological Seminary. I asked him what, in his professional opinion, was the most striking aspect of the discussion. Without hesitating, he replied, "The political maturation of the evangelical community. They asked sophisticated, serious questions and demonstrated a genuine political coming-of-age."
The evangelical leaders were, of course, not alone in political maturity. The Forum audience comprised evangelical and mainline Protestants, Roman Catholics, Jews, Muslims, and Buddhists. This diverse group—representing a broad range of faithful Americans in congregations and communities across the nation—really cared about compassion issues and how the candidates would provide leadership around these concerns. Their questions were not the only mark of spiritual maturity—their ability to gather together around shared concerns for the common good signaled a religious "coming-of-age" in a pluralistic nation as well.
If American religious leaders—evangelical, mainline, Jewish, Catholic, Buddhist, and Muslim—could gather respectfully and ask probing, important questions, why can't ABC News? It may well be time for some soul-searching over at their network. I suggest they ask themselves a question: “What Would Peter Jennings Do?”
Diana Butler Bass holds a doctorate in American religion from Duke University. She is the author of six books, including Christianity for the Rest of Us (HarperOne, 2006).
Last evening, I was privileged to be one of the religious leaders asked to participate in the Compassion Forum, sponsored by Faith in Public Life and broadcast by CNN from Messiah College. Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama participated; Sen. John McCain declined.
The religious leaders asked questions of real substance, focusing on difficult and important policy choices. We are not so much interested in the personal testimonies of candidates - important as those are - but rather how their faith beliefs would shape their leadership and decisions. It is also worth noting that the majority of the questions of substance and depth about critical policy issues came from the religious leaders last night, and the more personal questions about the religion came from the stage moderators for CNN—just as was the case at the Sojourners/CNN Forum on "Faith, Values, and Poverty" last June.
Here are a few examples:
Lisa Sharon Harper of New York Faith and Justice asked Sen. Clinton:
Senator Clinton, underdeveloped nations and regions lack widespread access to education and basic resources like water, and they tend to be some of the most unstable and dangerous regions of the world. Places like Pakistan, Somalia, Sudan. Our national security is at stake, but our military is stretched. As president, would you consider committing U.S. troops to a purely humanitarian mission under the leadership of a foreign flag?
Clinton responded:
I believe we should demonstrate our commitment to people who are poor, disenfranchised, disempowered before we talk about putting troops anywhere. The United States has to be seen again as a peacekeeper, and we have lost that standing in these last seven years. Therefore, I want us to have a partnership, government to government, government with the private sector, government with our NGOS and our faith community to show the best of what America has to offer. … Before we get to what we might do hypothetically, let's see what we will do realistically to rebuild America's moral authority and demonstrate our commitment to compassionate humanitarianism.
The moderator called on me to ask a question of Sen. Obama:
As you reminded us a week or two ago, when Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was killed 40 years ago, he wasn't just speaking about civil rights. He was fighting for economic justice, was about to launch a poor people's campaign. Yet, four decades after the anniversary of his death, the poverty rate in America is virtually unchanged, and one in six of our children are poor in the richest nation in the world. So in the faith community, we are wanting a new commitment around a measurable goal, something like cutting poverty in half in 10 years. Would you commit - would you at this historic compassion forum, commit to such a goal tonight, and, if elected, tell us how you'd mobilize the nation, mobilize us, to achieve that goal?
Obama's response:
I absolutely will make that commitment. Understand that when I make that commitment, I do so with great humility because it is a very ambitious goal. And we're going to have to mobilize our society, not just to cut poverty, but to prevent more people from slipping into poverty. … [After a series of specific policy proposals] And many of these, by the way, can be part of a faith community. And so, you know, just to go back to our theme here tonight, people sometimes ask me, what do I think about faith-based initiatives? I want to keep the Office of Faith-Based Initiatives open, but I want to make sure that its mission is clear … the faith-based initiatives should be targeted specifically at the issue of poverty and how to lift people up.
Getting such a commitment on the public record is important - both for changing the political conversation and helping to put an issue like poverty on the agenda, and also to hold whoever wins an election accountable. So I was pleased with Barack Obama's response and also that Hillary Clinton has made a similar commitment to lead to cut domestic poverty in half in the next ten years. Those commitments should further encourage the emerging faith-inspired movement to overcome poverty and give us some concrete benchmarks to work for.
Read the transcript for the rest of the excellent questions posed by the religious leaders last night, and the candidates' responses.
Kudos go to Katie Barge, the primary organizer of the Compassion Forum for Faith and Public Life, for helping to continue the national conversation on the critical relationship between faith and politics.
When Martin Luther King Jr. was assassinated, he was trying to move the country to take on the moral issue of economic injustice. And, for the first time in many years, the remembrances of King's death (this one the 40th anniversary) urged the nation to do the same. Usually the nation's anniversary celebrations freeze-frame King as the nation's greatest civil rights leader whose famous "I Have a Dream" speech at the Lincoln Memorial in 1963 was the extent of his message. Later calls for economic justice and the beginnings of a Poor People's Campaign are often ignored, not to mention the controversial connection King made between poverty and war in his opposition to the Vietnam War and his confrontation of the "triplets" of "poverty, racism, and militarism."
But last Friday was different and much more hopeful to our mission here at Sojourners of putting poverty on the agenda of this election year.
Barack Obama, speaking in Fort Wayne, Indiana, made the direct connection between memorializing King and taking up the mantle of his Poor People's campaign, and fighting for the cause of economic justice for those who have been left behind. The New York Times reported that Obama focused on King's presence in Memphis in support of striking sanitation workers and the continuing need for economic justice:
The reason Dr. King was in Memphis the day he was shot, Mr. Obama told the crowd of about 2,000 people, had to do as much with economics, in the form of wages and income, as with race. "It was a struggle for economic justice, for the opportunity that should be available to people of all races and all walks of life," he said. "Because Dr. King understood that the struggle for economic justice and the struggle for racial justice were really one, that each was part of a larger struggle for freedom, for dignity and for humanity."
King's son, Martin Luther King III, has called for a cabinet-level "poverty czar," and, to her credit, Hillary Clinton supported that goal in her speech in Memphis, according to the New York Times:
Mrs. Clinton gave her support to an idea long advocated by the King family, a cabinet position that she said would be "solely and fully devoted to ending poverty as we know it, that will focus the attention of our nation on this issue and never let it go." Mrs. Clinton added: "No more excuses, no more whining, but instead a concerted effort."
John McCain was also in Memphis, speaking at the National Civil Rights Museum (in what was the Lorraine Motel where Dr. King was shot.) McCain linked the anniversary to human rights, reports the Associated Press:
McCain said King "was called an agitator, a troublemaker, a malcontent, and a disturber of the peace. These are often the terms applied to men and women of conscience who will not endure cruelty, nor abide injustice. We hear them to this day -- in Darfur, Zimbabwe, Burma, Tibet, Iran and other lands -- directed at every brave soul who dares to disturb the peace of tyrants."
Human rights does continue to be a major issue, and the nation's poverty rate has not significantly improved in the 40 years since King's death. The national minimum wage has actually lost ground, with the 1968 rate worth $9.71 in 2008 dollars compared to $5.85 today. Many voices seem ready now to make that an urgent moral concern and commitment. Let us hope, pray, and work that it may be so.
Over the weekend, James Dobson backed off his earlier assertion that he would not cast a vote for president this year if John McCain clinched the GOP nomination. Voting is a "God-given responsibility," Dobson told host Sean Hannity Sunday night on Hannity's America, and one that he plans to fulfill despite his disenchantment with all three leading candidates.
But where does that leave Dobson? Will he backpedal and now throw his support behind McCain? Not likely, at least not yet. Before signing off with Hannity, Dobson made it clear that McCain's support of the pro-life and pro-marriage planks in the Republican Party platform was not enough; he wants assurances from the Arizona senator that he will oppose embryonic stem-cell research as well. "That's a major one for me," Dobson said. "You can't really call yourself pro-life if you're going to kill those babies."
The question now is who will blink first. If McCain holds his ground—he supports federal funding for research on unused embryos from fertility clinics—he risks losing the percentage of the evangelical vote that Dobson continues to influence. With the presidency at stake, that's a risk McCain most likely won't take despite all the chatter about Dobson's waning influence among evangelicals.
Still, there is that chance that Dobson has painted himself into a corner on this one. As recently as two months ago, he adamantly stated that he would not vote for McCain. If McCain doesn't change his position on stem-cell research to Dobson's liking, that leaves Dobson with precious few choices—namely, a compromise vote for McCain, an unlikely vote for Ron Paul (assuming he gets on the ballot), or a write-in vote for his assumed candidate of choice all along, Mitt Romney.
This could prove to be a defining moment in the relationship between the GOP and a historically prominent leader of the religious right. The perception of Dobson as an important player in conservative politics just may hinge on McCain's response to what appears to be Dobson's line-in-the-sand challenge.
We were never likely to get away with "transcending" race in this election as the early Obama campaign suggested to some. The demons of race in America simply run too deep and were bound to eventually rear their ugly heads. And so they did with the now infamous taped sound bites by Rev. Jeremiah Wright and the furious media response to them. I've said before that the constant replaying of the tapes has become a metaphor for the continual replaying of our old racial tapes in this country. Black anger and frustration because of real grievances, provoking white indignation revealing the lack of white understanding, causing more black frustration and alienation etc; it just goes on and on.
So Barack Obama had to give a major speech on race that he likely hoped not to have to give. But it was an historic statement, offering a deeper vision and hope of our forming "a more perfect union" than we had heard in many decades. After the speech, the ball was again in America's court—in white America's court in particular. Would the nation respond to Obama's hopeful vision, of turning a corner from racial anger and frustration to new opportunity and unity, or would his candidacy be derailed by his pastor's mixture of prophetic black preaching and unfortunate overstatements? While it will likely take weeks and even months to know the final answer to that central question, the first polls taken since Wright tapes and Obama's speech suggest that it has not hurt his candidacy in the ways that some had feared. As the Pew Research Center reported yesterday on its new poll, "the Wright controversy does not appear to have undermined support for Obama's candidacy."
Black Americans were a founding population. Africans and Europeans came here and founded this country together — Europeans by choice and Africans in chains. That's not a very pretty reality of our founding. … That particular birth defect makes it hard for us to confront it, hard for us to talk about it, and hard for us to realize that it has continuing relevance for who we are today.
Because this issue is now about much more than a candidate or an election, but about the issue of race in America, the poll results and the voice of the highest-ranking black official in the country provide a small glimmer of hope that the nation may be ready to try and take a step forward. Obama should be judged, as should any candidate, on the basis of his policy positions and leadership capacity, not because of our old racial tapes.
It was an amazing day, and, we may look back to conclude it was a historic day. Before Barack Obama's speech yesterday, after the now infamous statements from his former pastor; the issue seemed to be a test of him. But after what may go down as one of the most significant addresses ever given about the history and future of race in America, the issue may now be a test of us. The examination of a candidate was transformed yesterday into an examination of a nation.
A young African American leader, more than four decades ago, told us about his dream for our nation. Yesterday, another young leader, who is also a black man, outlined what it would take to make that dream into a "more perfect union." No political leader has ever delivered such a comprehensive and, I would say, prophetic treatment of race in America.
Every American needs to watch and listen to Barack Obama's speech about the future that the U.S. could have. And I would suggest we watch the speech with our children. After watching, we should ask ourselves, and ask our children, if this is the vision for the U.S. that we and they really want. If it is, we will have moved from an issue over controversial comments to much higher ground. After the constant replaying of the same video tapes (which seems like a metaphor of our recent racial history in America), we listened to an invitation to turn the page and move forward.
We heard the vision of a new generation today, one that understands how injustice does indeed breed frustration and anger, but that to remain stuck in past anger and present frustration can be counter-productive and even self-destructive. We heard a vision characterized not by incendiary recrimination but by the possibility of changing the realities that have kept us stuck in a racial "stalemate" and a mired in a "cynical" and "static" view of America's painful divides. This was a speech that actually posited new hope for opportunity and equality, and even the beginning of the kind of racial reconciliation and unity which few have dared to speak of since the end of the civil rights movement.
We heard a political leader who, as a black man, can also sympathize with white resentment and frustration over racial politics, and who can see both the anger of a black mentor and the racial stereotypes of a white grandmother as both part of him and part of America. The most honest and compelling speech about race in decades could open the promise of a deeper national conversation about our racial past and future than we have had for some time. Obama's speech leaves the choice to us. The issue now is whether we will choose not to allow the angry and frustrating past prevent a more fair and hopeful future; or whether we will be forever bound by that past. To the question of whether race will continue to divide and conquer our hopes for a better America, Barack Obama had his answer, "Not this time." Now we each have to answer the question for ourselves.
This is not just about a candidate now, or a campaign; it is about the country and the choices we have to make about whether we will decide to bind our progress to one another - including those beyond our own tribe. Ask your children what they would have us do.
On a Sunday when Americans flooded houses of worship seeking words of comfort, hope, and healing, Rev. Jeremiah Wright of Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago dared to forgo the singing of "God Bless America." Instead, Senator Barack Obama's pastor claimed the prophetic biblical message of the hour ought to call us to proclaim, "God Damn America."
The words remain jarring and infuriating. Wright's comments seem at best incomplete and untimely. At worst, they imply that God is vindictive, vengeful, and bloodthirsty, even during a time of tragedy--that the judgment of God is appropriately meted out through the tragic deaths of innocent people through terrorist acts of hatred and evil.
On Sept. 15, 2001, Rev. Wright was wrong. His words failed to connect with the pastoral needs of a nation in mourning.
Throughout his career, however, Rev. Wright has been "right" more often than not. He has followed in the traditions of Hebrew Testament prophets, challenging his nation to live up to its own creeds of justice and opportunity for all - including African Americans, other minorities, and the poor.
Wright is in good company. When his provocative language is read alongside the vitriolic words of many Hebrew Testament prophets, Wright's words ring true. The prophets connected their nation's injustice and neglect of the poor with the destruction of Israel, often using vitriolic language. The prophet Amos once described the wealthy women of Samaria as "fat cows." Isaiah referred to once faithful Israel as a prostitute.
Not only are most of Rev. Wright's words biblically correct; they are also historically accurate. The U.S. has participated in many acts of evil. From slavery to Jim Crow segregation, from sexism to the internment of Japanese during World War II, from environmental disasters to the neglect of the poor, America has a record on par with that of Hebrew Testament Israel.
When it comes to foreign policy, the U.S. did financially invest in South Africa during the days of apartheid, used the CIA to enact coups against democratically elected leaders in Iran and Guatemala in the 1950s, and remains the only nation to use nuclear weapons. Perhaps these domestic and foreign policy actions prove that Rev. Wright was right.
But this is only a part of the picture. While the U.S. is far from perfect, the nation has made significant progress regarding rights for minorities and women. The U.S. has often been a force for good in the world, from helping to rebuild Japan and Western Europe after World War II to the vast amounts of private and government funds offered to deal with global crises like the HIV-AIDS and malaria crises in Africa. Rev. Wright was not entirely right.
On March 18, Barack Obama used his speech about race to appropriately distance himself from the most vitriolic of his pastor's rhetoric. He has also removed Rev. Wright from a position on his campaign's spiritual advisory committee.
In the Hebrew Testament, prophets were as a rule not insiders in the royal palace. Jeremiah's words of prophetic judgment became so disruptive to the King threw the prophet into jail. Just over 40 years ago, Martin Luther King, Jr. gave up his access to President Lyndon Baines Johnson to prophetically speak out against the war in Vietnam. Put simply, prophets and presidents don't mix.
Thankfully, Senator Obama was careful not to condemn the entire prophetic ministry of Rev. Wright. Our nation desperately needs the prophetic voice he has embodied over decades of public ministry. And no matter who our next president is, he or she would be well served to consider the words of Rev. Wright, for he has been more right than wrong.
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. His book Becoming King: Martin Luther King, Jr. and the Making of a National Leader (The University Press of Kentucky, 2008) will be available in the fall. Troy is a participant in Sojourners' "Windchangers" grassroots organizing pilot project in Ohio to work on the Vote Out Poverty Campaign.
It has simmered throughout this campaign, and now race has exploded into the center of the media debate about the presidential race. Just when a black political leader is calling us all to a new level of responsibility, hope, and unity, the old and divisive rhetoric of race from both blacks and whites is rearing its ugly head to bring down the best chance we have had for years of finally moving forward.
And that is indeed the real issue here. A black man is closer to possibly becoming president than ever before in U.S. history. And this black man is not even running as "a black man," but as a new kind of political leader who believes the country is ready for a new kind of politics. But a new kind of politics and a new face for political leadership is deeply threatening to all the forces that represent the old kind of politics in the U.S. And all the rising focus on race in this election campaign has one purpose and one purpose alone—to stop Barack Obama from becoming president of the United States.
Barack Obama should win or lose his party's nomination or the presidency based on the positions he takes regarding the great issues of our time and his capacity to lead the country and the U.S.'s role in the world. He must not win or lose because of the old politics of race in the U.S. That would be a tragedy for all of us.
The cable news stations and talk radio are playing carefully selected excerpts of the most potentially incendiary statements from Rev. Jeremiah Wright's fiery sermons. Wright is the retiring pastor of Barack Obama and his family's home Trinity Church in Chicago. Obama, while affirming the tremendous work his church has done in his city and around the nation, has condemned the most controversial remarks of his pastor. But the whole controversy points to the enormous gap in understanding between the mainstream black community in the U.S. and the experience of many white Americans. And that is what we are going to have to heal if we are ever to move forward.
Here is what I mean.
There is a deep well of both frustration and anger in the African-American community in the U.S. And those feelings are borne of the concrete experience of real oppression, discrimination, and blocked opportunities that most of America's white citizens take for granted. African Americans across the spectrum of income and success will speak personally to those feelings of frustration and anger, when white people are willing to listen. But usually we are not. In 2008, to still not comprehend or seek to understand the reality of black frustration and anger is to be in a state of white denial - which, very sadly, is where many white Americans are.
The black church pulpit has historically been a place of prophetic truth-telling about the realities that black people experience in their own country. Indeed, the black church has often been the only place where such truths are ever told. And, black preachers have had the pastoral task of nurturing the spirits of people who feel beaten down week after week. Strong and prophetic words from black church pulpits are often a source of comfort and affirmation for black congregations. The truth is that many white Americans would indeed feel uncomfortable with the rhetoric of many black preachers from many black churches all across the country.
But if you look beyond the grainy black-and-white clips of the dashiki-clad Rev. Wright and the angry black male voice (all designed to provoke stereotypes and fear), and actually listen to what his words are saying about the U.S. being run by "rich white people" while blacks have cabs speeding by them, and about the U.S.'s misdeeds around the world, it's hard to disagree with many of the facts presented. It's rather the angry tone of Wright's comments that provides the offense and the controversy.
Ironically, a new generation of black Americans is now eager and ready to move beyond the frustration and anger to a new experience of opportunity and hope. And nobody represents that shift more than Barack Obama. There is a generational shift occurring within the black community itself. This shift is between an older generation that is sometimes perceived to be stuck in the politics of victimization and grievance, and a younger generation that believes that opportunity and progress are now possible—not by ignoring, but by being committed to actually changing the facts of oppression and discrimination.
Barack Obama represents that hope of dealing with the substance of the issues of injustice while at the same time articulating the politics of hope, and even the possibility of racial unity. Obama's attraction to many who are white, especially a new generation, demonstrates the promise of a new racial politics in the U.S. But to be a leader for a new generation of black Americans, Barack Obama had to be firmly rooted in the black church tradition, where the critique of white America, the sustenance of the African-American community, and God's promise for the future are all clearly articulated. That's why he began attending Trinity Church, where he was converted to Jesus Christ in the black liberationist tradition of, among others, Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.
So it would be a great tragedy if the old rhetoric of black frustration and anger were to now hurt Barack Obama, who has become the best hope of beginning to heal that very frustration and anger. Obama has never chosen to talk about race in the way that Rev. Jeremiah Wright does on the video clips that keep playing, and indeed has never played "the race card" at any time in this election. It's been his opponents that have, especially the right-wing conservative media machine that wants the U.S. to believe he is secretly a Muslim and from a "racist" church.
This most recent controversy over race just demonstrates how enormous the gap still is between whites and blacks in the U.S. - in our experience and our capacity to understand one another. May God help us to heal that divide and truly bless America.
Tuesday evening, John McCain clinched the Republican nomination for president, and Mike Huckabee, the last remaining contender, conceded defeat. Huckabee's campaign, and the failure of the Religious Right to support him, has been one of the most interesting and puzzling stories of this primary season
While Huckabee is certainly a social conservative, he refused to toe the line on a number of issues. And that is why I say the monologue of the Religious Right has ended and the evangelical agenda has broadened.
In the Republican YouTube debate, the candidates were asked if they believed every word of the Bible. Huckabee said that while some of the Bible was allegorical, we needed to take much of it much more seriously than we do - like the words of Jesus which say, "As you have done to the least of these you have done to me." This is not the text that most conservatives quote when asked about the authority of the Bible. In an interview with Reuters in January, Huckabee spoke about the broadening evangelical agenda:
Unquestionably there is a maturing that is going on within the evangelical movement. It doesn't mean that evangelicals are any less concerned about traditional families and the sanctity of life. It just means that they also realize that we have real responsibility in areas like disease and hunger and poverty and that these are issues that people of faith have to address.
And when conservative columnists like Robert Novak attacked Huckabee for not being a "real conservative," this is precisely what they meant. When Huckabee was governor of Arkansas, he advocated spending money on poor people - behavior which is offensive to the economically conservative wing of the Republican Party. While Huckabee is a consistent social conservative, he is suspect by the party's economic conservatives who, of course, don't support spending any money on overcoming poverty. Huckabee disagrees with them.
On immigration, in that same debate, there was an all out attack on "illegal aliens" who became the new scapegoat, the new "other," for the Republican candidates - and the preferred way to energize their primary base. Except for the grateful acknowledgement from John McCain that "these are God's children too," every Republican candidate preceded to demagogue the issue, beating up on undocumented immigrants for crass political gain.
But then Mike Huckabee spoke. He agreed that our borders need to be protected and enforced (I do too), but then defended his support for a failed bill in Arkansas to give scholarships to exceptional students - including undocumented children. He said he didn't want to punish children for their parents' illegal actions because "that's not what we typically do in this country." This educational plan, he said, was intended to bring people from illegal to legal status. He continued, saying that he had received a good education, but if he hadn't, "I wouldn't be standing on this stage; I might be picking lettuce; I might be a person who needed government support." Then he said, "In all due respect, we're a better country than to punish children for what their parents did." Although he later moved more to the right in the heat of the primaries, that response remains.
Is that ultimately why the leaders of the Religious Right didn't support Mike Huckabee until late in the primary season? Is it because many on the Religious Right are really more committed to economic conservatism that social conservatism? Have religious conservatives gotten so used to their access to power that they are afraid to risk standing for principle over pragmatism? Huckabee was the most consistent social conservative Republican in the race, including winning the straw poll at the FRC Values Voters Summit, yet most of the leaders of the Religious Right never rallied around him. But the evangelical base did – keeping him the race until this week.
Now that he is out of the race, what's next for Huckabee? The conservative Washington Times says Huckabee is at the forefront of evangelical revival, and quoted his former communications director as saying
He has become the leader of a new generation of Christian conservative voters. ... There is nobody else you can identify outside of Mike Huckabee as a leading person to take on that role, really in a new era where evangelicals care about a lot of things like the environment and working with the poor.
That there's now a pitched battle for the soul of the religious right is a horrifying thought to Republican leaders long familiar with the old religious right, a hierarchical group dominated by larger-than-life figures who'd anointed themselves Jesus's political representatives. But that movement is withering at the top and in revolt at the grass-roots. … What's new is how widespread social justice issues are in the evangelical world. Leading New Testament theologian N.T. Wright, a conservative, says that the greatest moral issue today is not abortion but the economic inequality between the U.S. and Europe and the developing world.
So, stay tuned, we haven't heard the last from Mike Huckabee.
I don't endorse political candidates, but I will defend them when it becomes necessary. On this, I agree with my friend, Richard Land, the conservative Southern Baptist leader who is often identified with the Religious Right. Richard and I agree that faith has a place in politics and, when we agree on fundamental moral questions, have worked together. Richard says, "I have defended various candidates from time to time when I've felt that they have been unfairly or inaccurately criticized. At other times, I have been asked by the media for my assessment of a particular candidate's chances or weaknesses and strengths. Neither defense nor assessment should be confused with endorsement. As a matter of policy, I have not endorsed, do not endorse and will not endorse candidates."
So I am going to defend my friend, Barack Obama, from an increasing number of ridiculous and scurrilous attacks on the Internet and in the media. The latest incident occurred when a loud-mouth radio talk show host in Cincinnati let loose with a barrage of disparaging remarks against Senator Obama and kept using his middle name—Barack HUSSEIN Obama—over and over, seemingly to tie into the Internet accusations that Obama is really a Muslim who, as a child, attended a Muslim "madrassa" school in Indonesia that taught Islamic fundamentalism, etc. As a Chicago Tribune blog piece commented, "Anyone who uses Obama's middle name repeatedly, like Cincinnati radio host Bill Cunningham the other day, knows what he or she is doing and what feelings they are trying to evoke. There's simply nothing innocent about it."
The occasion for the shock jock's diatribe was his introduction of Senator John McCain at a rally. To his great credit, McCain denounced the remarks when he heard about them, disassociated himself from this kind of attack, and reaffirmed that his campaign would be conducted on higher ground. Good for you, John McCain. So of course, the local loud-mouth, Bill Cunningham, quickly withdrew his support from McCain and now is denouncing him too; which, of course, was quickly picked up by his mentor, the national radio loud-mouth Rush Limbaugh (whom the local Cunningham seems to desperately "wannabe"). And, of course, Rush is now denouncing both Obama and McCain.
I watched last night as other cable news shows told this story and subtly tried to add more fuel to the fire. Lou Dobbs downplayed the Cincinnati outburst as unimportant and suggested it was no different that telling the world that John McCain's middle name is "Sydney." Sure Lou; and it was interesting that Dobbs followed with more innuendos and rolled eyes over the moment in the Tuesday Democratic debate when Obama was asked about Louis Farrakhan, about suspicions that Barack's home Trinity Church on the south side of Chicago was "black nationalist," and about why Obama's pastor, Jeremiah Wright, wouldn't come on Lou's show to discuss his alleged sympathies for Farrakhan, etc. It is certainly no mystery why Pastor Wright didn't cancel his retirement celebrations and drop everything to come on Lou's show. Would anyone?
An Associated Press story titled " Obama Fights False Links to Islam" commented on the new flare-up, "For Barack Obama, it is an ember that he has doused time and again, only to see it flicker anew: links to Islam fanned by false rumors, innuendo, and association."
During the Democratic debate, Obama again "denounced and rejected" the ugly anti-Semitic comments that Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan has often made, as he had done many times before. Farrakhan hadn't actually endorsed Obama, but recently said, "This young man is the hope of the entire world that America will change and be made better." Asked on Tuesday night about whether he would accept Farrakhan's support, Obama said: "I live in Chicago. He lives in Chicago. I've been very clear, in terms of me believing that what he has said is reprehensible and inappropriate. And I have consistently distanced myself from him."
So let's set the record straight. I have known Barack Obama for more than 10 years, and we have been talking about his Christian faith for a decade. Like me and many other Christians, he agrees with the need to reach out to Muslims around the world, especially if we are ever to defeat Islamic fundamentalism. But he is not a Muslim, never has been, never attended a Muslim madrassa, and does not attend a black "separatist" church. Rather, he has told me the story of his coming from an agnostic household, becoming a community organizer on Chicago's South Side who worked with the churches, and how he began attending one of them. Trinity Church is one of the most prominent and respected churches in Chicago and the nation, and its pastor, Jeremiah Wright, is one of the leading revival preachers in the black church. Ebony magazine once named him one of America's 15 best Black preachers. The church says it is "unashamedly black and unapologetically Christian," like any good black church would, but is decidedly not "separatist," as its white members and friends would attest.
And one Sunday, as Obama has related to me and written in his book The Audacity of Hope, the young community organizer walked down the aisle and gave his life to Christ in a very personal and very real Christian conversion experience. We have talked about our faith and its relationship to politics many times since. And after Obama gave his speech at a Sojourners/Call to Renewal conference in June 2006, E.J. Dionne said that it may have been "the most important pronouncement by a Democrat on faith and politics since John F. Kennedy's Houston speech in 1960 declaring his independence from the Vatican."
Like his politics or not, support his candidacy or not - but don't disparage Barack Obama's faith, his church, his minister, or his credibility as an eloquent Christian layman who feels a vocation in politics. Those falsehoods are simply vicious lies and should be denounced by people of faith from across the political spectrum.
Emergents seek a theological rationale for their political engagement. The thing is, that rationale varies from issue to issue, which makes the emergents an infuriatingly moving target for those with more traditional political viewpoints. For instance, the Christian speaker Len Sweet, a longtime friend of Emergent, recently spoke out against the movement in Relevant magazine, saying:
We got to this point in the '70s where you could not tell the difference between the Democratic Party platform and the Church's portrayal of the Kingdom of God. I think that any intrusion of Christianity into politics—whether right or left—is ugly. So I don't see Jesus as coming with a political agenda. Yes, there are radical social and economic consequences to His message, but to claim that Jesus' message was a political one [is incorrect]. It's Jim Wallis's evangelical updating of the Social Gospel movement, or liberalism's liberation theology of the '70s and '80s.
In the article, Sweet charges that emergent Christians are nothing but the New Christian Left, based primarily, it seems, on Brian McLaren's increasingly political writings. But to those inside Emergent, the criticism missed the mark, as do the protestations of the lefties when emergents don't play by their rules either. For gathered around the Emergent table are Republicans and Democrats, pro-lifers and pro-choicers, laissez-faire free-market capitalists and communitarian socialists. There is no ideological requirement to join, just a shared commitment to robust, theological dialogue about issues that matter.
And surely, most emergents vehemently disagree with Sweet's claim that Jesus' message was apolitical. This school of thought—that Jesus was interested in the kingdom of God, not in the machinations of human politics—is not shared by emergents. The emergents are activists—even political activists—just not in the conventional sense. If "politics" means the way that human beings collectively make things happen, then this supremely interested Jesus.
But where Sweet is right is to claim that Jesus was not co-opted by any of the political parties of his day. Emergents have grown up in the dire shadow of the Moral Majority and the Christian Coalition, who too closely allied with the Republicans in the 1980s and 1990s. From the emergent perspective, this partnership was a match made in hell, a marriage in which one partner (the Republican Party) will inevitably corrupt the other (the Christian Right). Thus in my travels, many emergents have expressed to me great hesitation about the building momentum of leftward or progressive groups (such as Tikkun magazine, Sojourners/Call to Renewal, and FaithfulDemocrats.org). Their fear is that these groups will make the same mistakes that their conservative brethren did 30 years ago: lose their independence by aligning with a political party. Politics is a dirty business, which is why political scientists refer to the compromises required as the "theory of dirty hands." In other words, for politics to work in a liberal democracy, elected officials cannot stand unbudgingly on principle. To get things done—like getting legislation passed—politicians have to compromise. That's just how it works.
But this very compromise has drawn the ire of Stanley Hauerwas, dubbed by Time magazine as America's most influential theologian (and known by many as the theologian with the saltiest tongue). Looking back on the 20th century, Hauerwas is supremely disheartened by the compromises of his coreligionists. The American mainline—Hauerwas is a Methodist—forsook many of their distinctives in order to have influence in society. Many flowery prayers have opened the session of the U.S. Senate as a result, but the radical and liberating gospel got lost. Hauerwas and his legion of acolytes respond by saying that Christians operate according to a rationality and language that is mutually exclusive from the compromises required in a democracy. Hauerwas himself has gone so far as to say that Christians should not run for political office.
While the Hauerwasian position appeals to many emergents, others find it an overreaction and agree with the Princeton University philosopher Jeffrey Stout, who charges Hauerwas with creating a "Christian enclave theory." Emergents seem stuck in a no-man's-land: on the one hand, they're committed to a deep, political engagement in American society, but on the other hand, they vow not to be co-opted by a political party. This is driven both by the belief that the national parties are ultimately concerned with self-perpetuation (not a gospel value) and by the clear inference in the Gospels that Jesus remained independent from all of the political parties of the day: the Essenes, Sadducees, Pharisees, Zealots, and Herodians all appear on the biblical stage, yet Jesus identifies with none of them. The one thing predictable about Jesus' interactions with the powers that be: he was predictably unpredictable.
Consequently, emergents are looking for a couple of things. First, they're intent on finding and supporting politicians who will change the political landscape, those who will resist doing business as usual. This may not differ appreciably from many politically engaged Americans, but the emergents may be the generation of Christians to represent a critical mass, a tipping point to upset the political apple cart. Second, emergents will look at political engagement as an art rather than a science. Therefore, they will artfully look for points of intersection and moments of potential cooperation with politicians on both sides of the aisle. The junctures of the gospel and political engagement are myriad, and they will surely not line up exclusively with the ideology of one political party. But the independence of emergents does not preclude activism. In fact, it begets activism.
What about the mosaic revival is comforting? As a Latino evangelical leader, one of the things I am asking is moving beyond polarization. In this mosaic revival, we know that though politics is not the whole solution, it will be a vital part. We need the nexus of clergy, good government, activists, entrepreneurs, moms and dads, educators, etc. As a Christian who is part of the mosaic revival, I cling to one thing: my commitment is to Christ and the gospel first, not to any political party. As a citizen who values justice, my commitment is to justice first and not any political party. In the mosaic revival, we reserve the right to criticize any party that violates and oppresses the least of these. That list is a long one (not exhaustive):
· people oppressed by poverty all over the world, · the educationally deprived, · unborn babies, · mothers who are left without quality care for newborns, · victims in Darfur, Rwanda, · those who are impacted by AIDS/HIV, · a planet with ecological challenges, · abused woman and children, · victims of violence in urban centers and college campuses, · indigenous and immigrant groups that are displaced or marginalized.
The mosaic revival says this is beyond the Republicans, Democrats, or Independents. The kaleidoscope convention says, "How can we respond in ethical and nuanced ways to these global crises?"
Before I was a pastor, I was a Pentecostal evangelist that spoke to thousands of young people in revivals across the U.S. and Latin America. I think I hear them more clearly now than I ever did before. They're saying what I heard Jim Wallis say a month ago in New York: "How do we speak to two great hungers, spiritual revival and social justice?" The mosaic revival, or "awakening" as Jim may say it, says we understand Wilberforce, Charles Finney, Mother Teresa and Marting Luther King Jr., just to name a few heroes. Our commitment is to speak pastorally and prophetically to our nation and the world. We also recognize, as Christians, that we cannot do it alone. There is a deep mystical and spiritual element to this work.
On Tuesday, Feb. 12, Bishop John Gimenez left to be with the Lord. He was the pastor of the Rock Church in Virginia and a respected leader in the Latino evangelical community. Like my father, he was a former heroin junkie who had a radical conversion experience. I met Bishop John several years ago in New York at Bishop Luciano Padilla Jr.'s church. Although ideologically we were not always in 100 percent agreement, the bishop said to me something I'll never forget: "Believe the gospel can transform and let God work through it and you to change the world."
So when I'm asked, "What gives you the right to speak as a Latino evangelical? My response is, "The gospel mandate and the call of Jesus in Luke 4 as he quoted from the prophet Isaiah." The mosaic revival is not about blue or red states or liberal or conservative. It is, in the words of Gandhi, "Being the change you want to see in the world." Miguel de Unamuno, the Spanish poet said it best, "If not you, who? If not now, when?" The mosaic revival says always put the gospel (as a Christian) and your fundamental commitments to justice (as a citizen, Christian, Jewish, Muslim, secular, etc.,) ahead of partisanship.
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.
I once asked a fellow Minnesotan why he voted for former professional wrestler, Jesse "The Body" Ventura, for governor in 1998. He said, "It was my way of giving the finger to the Democrats and the Republicans."
There's a growing sense among emergents that the polarization in U.S. politics isn't real—it's a script written by the two political parties and the U.S. media. They wrote this script and they perpetuate it because they have the most to gain from its perpetuation. The unnuanced maps showing states as "red" or "blue" disregards the fact that in a red state, as many as 49 percent of the voters are blue, and vice versa.
But even more important, it ignores what we all know to be true: each one of us is a complex mélange of viewpoints and opinions, and very few of us line up with every plank in a party's platform. Being that postmodern Christians are acutely aware of micronarratives and justifiably incredulous toward metanarratives, they are particularly suspicious of the spokespersons of left and right who often begin their pufferies with "Americans believe . . ." But having two sides makes for good television; have six nuanced positions does not.
From a theoretical point of view, both the good and the bad of our democracy in its present state seem to be driven by the concept of unalienable, individual human rights. Dubbed as believable as "witches and unicorns" by the philosopher Alasdair MacIntyre, the modern version of individual rights was invented by John Locke (1632–1704) and written into the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution by Thomas Jefferson and his posse. Carried into the modern world by the French and American revolutions, individual rights became the foundation of liberal democracy, clearly the most robust and equitable of all systems of government yet conceived. And although it happened more slowly than many people would have liked, the concept of individual rights brought about great goods like ending government-backed slavery, women's suffrage, and the civil rights movement.
However, it is also responsible for some serious ills, including the rampant consumerism ("You deserve that new iPod!") that has led to the average U.S. adult carrying a credit card balance of $8,000. And, it seems, the premise of individual rights means that some arguments just aren't winnable - the rights of the mother versus the rights of the unborn child; my right to define "marriage" versus your right to define "marriage." For all its achievements, the shortcomings of social contract theory are now in view.
Emergents don't have a problem with Lockean individual rights per se - their problem is with the fact that unalienable, individual rights is not a biblical-theological virtue. The Bible's call is not to protect the self but to sacrifice the self. Jesus says clearly to his followers, "Drop everything and follow me. ... Let the dead bury their own dead. ... Sell everything you own, give the money to the poor, and follow me. ... Take up your cross daily." An anecdote that corroborates this is supplied by the Roman Catholic spiritual leader Brennan Manning. Years ago, he asked his Jewish friend and poet Shel Silverstein what Jesus meant to him. Silverstein responded a few weeks later when he gave Manning The Giving Tree, now a perpetual best-seller in children's literature. In the simple story, a tree literally gives his life, piece by piece, to a boy as he becomes a man. It's beautiful and poignant, and it represents the self-sacrifice at the center of Jesus' life.
To that, the Apostle Paul adds a score of exhortations to self-control, forgiveness, and reconciliation. Supplement this with the fact that every word of the Hebrew and Christian scripture was written to human beings living in community (the nation of Israel in the former, the early church in the latter), and it becomes untenable for a Christian to base her life on the philosophy that "it's all about me and my rights."
In the 2008 election, "change" has emerged as the new catch-all buzzword. I reported on the God's Politics blog a few of the positive signs of social change I've been observing recently as a religious satirist. When I was interviewed in a recent Living Church article profiling emerging churches, I quoted Diana Butler Bass' astute observations that "she finds vitality and growth in those mainline churches who are mining the resources of their tradition while tapping into a global spirit that infuses religion, politics and the culture at large, transcending organizations and individuals."
Lately, I am noticing a number of emergent church leaders who have interpreted this spiritual sea change by endorsing a particular candidate. While one can say that emergent is a conversation, once you are seen as a published author/pastor/spokesman of any religious enterprise, your words carry weight when uttered in any public forum, be it book or blog.
Something in my bones tells me we're on the precipice of a slippery slope where before we know it, certain groups will be perceived as political pawns. When I was researching my dysfunctional family tree I learned I'm a direct descendent of Rev. Roger Williams, the founder of the state of Rhode Island and a champion of religious freedom. The more I delve into my 12th and 13th great-grandfather's work, I realize we're very similar souls.
So perhaps Williams' writings can provide some added perspective here. Despite constant threats of persecution, book burnings, and other means of oppression employed by the crown, he continued to advocate for the preservation of "soul liberty," a term that means that neither the state nor the church can judge anyone's conscience regardless of their religious beliefs. According to Williams, individual conscience must be free from the tyranny of the majority. As he noted, state sponsorship of religion would yield an unhappy situation wherein "the whole world must rule and govern the Church." The merger of church and state remains "opposite to the souls of all men who by persecutions are ravished into a dissembled worship which their hearts embrace not."
So we don't all get seasick during this sea change, perhaps we should all we heed Williams' wisdom. So, what role should those seen as religious leaders and spokespersons assume during the 2008 presidential election? Should they express their presidential preferences in public forums like blogs and social networking sites like Facebook and MySpace? And on a more personal level, what if a church elder wants to wear a campaign button or T-shirt to the church picnic? How do we walk this fine line between preserving the right to free speech versus the need for the church and those seen as her leaders to be prophetic voices and not political pawns?
This bantering by all the candidates claiming to be the champion of change brings to mind previous campaign slogans such as "Compassionate Conservatism," "Putting People First," and "Kinder, Gentler Nation" that have been utilized to galvanize voters to rally behind a certain candidate. A quick run-through of the politics enacted during any president's term reveals that their rhetoric fell short of their results one they were in office and reality set in.
During the 2006 midterm elections, I commented on The Ooze how "this foolish quest to conform Christ's teachings to the whims of a particular political party has really started hitting the faith and it's been stinking up the local churches big time. I know Jesus was born in a barn but do churches have to smell like one as well? I dunno about you, but I think it's high time we started mucking out the stables." Tony Compolo's infamous quote about the mixing of church and politics should serve as a cautionary reminder here. "Evangelicalism getting wedded to any political party is like ice cream mixing with horse manure. It's not going to hurt the horse manure, but it sure will mess up the ice cream."
This is part two of my reflections concerning Election 2008 and Generation X, Y, and next. As I said before, this is an exciting time in the national landscape. A revival is taking place that incorporates thousands of younger evangelicals with pioneers in the faith. This is a broad coalition of Moseses and Joshuas and Deborahs, to use biblical language. In my last posting here concerning the election in kaleidoscope, I received some e-mails, phone calls, and postings that demonstrate the need for this conversation.
The question is what does this Mosaic revival reveal? Simply, that we recognize that to promote real movement it will take a broad coalition across racial/ethnic, gender, generational, and denominational lines. Much has been rumored of the tension between black and brown or Asian and black voters. Other tensions have been pointed about differences between female and male voters or young and elderly voters. We're working for a new day. This revival is pleading for people of good will to change the national conversation screen to high-definition.
Let me be clear about some of the challenges to this mosaic in concrete election 2008 terms:
Refusing to vote for Senator McCain because of his age (ageism);
Refusing to vote for Senator Obama because of his race (racism).
Refusing to vote for Senator Clinton because of her gender (sexism).
Refusing to vote for Governors Romney or Huckabee because of their religion (sectarianism).
Voting for them only because of any of these criteria presents its own myopia.
I vote for a candidate based on where they stand on the issues that most closely reflect Jesus' ethic of love of God and creation (this is a very long discussion worth having in another forum). I am hopeful that there is a new and creative conversation surging. In this new conversation, leaders in the Asian, Euro-American, Latino, Native-American, African-American, etc., communities are emphasizing the "ties that bind" and not the walls that separate.
In this new kaleidoscopic way of doing policy perhaps we should think of endorsements in another way. What candidates are endorsing policies that are mindful of this global and U.S. mosaic? In a politics-as-usual model, candidates exploit tensions—perceived or real—among demographics. This really needs to stop. A new kind of conversation seeks creative solutions that take particularity seriously but does away with the politics of animosity. There are signs of hope.
Recently, I've joined an organization called New York Faith and Justice and I've learned something about a new wave of voters. Two of the prominent leaders are an African American Cherokee Chickasaw woman, Lisa Sharon Harper, and a white evangelical man, Peter Heltzel. Lisa and Peter are an example of this emerging mosaic. They welcome my Latino perspective and continually want to be challenged and informed by it. Peter and Lisa are working hard to ensure that issues important to multiple constituencies are at the forefront of our city-wide and national dialogue.
Similarly, I've been working closely with Adam Taylor and Patty Kupfer of Sojourners on immigration reform issues. The conversation between this black man, white woman, and myself are a sign of the mosaic that represents the diversity of the kingdom of God. We don't always agree on everything, but we are committed to mutuality and respect and working on behalf of the beloved community - stated in Revelation 7:9 - "from every tribe, nation, people and language." These are signs of hopefulness that the presidential candidates need to heed. What is critical here is that there is not an attempt to assimilate but rather to keep unity while respecting diversity.
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.
Without question the 2008 election is a historic time. Much has been said about the momentous nature of this presidential election. A woman, an African American, and a Latino were all trying to make history, albeit on one side of the political aisle. This moment in U.S. history should not be understated. As a Latino evangelical leader, I've been watching this election closely. It's an excellent time to talk about national voting in terms of a kaleidoscope. As a man who grew up in poor urban neighborhood in New Jersey and today pastors a multiethnic congregation in New York, I recognize the fragile nature of these conversations. Despite the complexity of this conversation, this election is an opportune moment to engage this much needed dialogue. The mixed legacy of race relations in the U.S. demands a broader conversation. In the 21st century, where many watch television in high-definition, national politics must be done in technicolor.
Everyone knows there is a Latino boom in the U.S. We are no longer, to paraphrase Black novelist, Ralph Ellison, The Invisible People. By most accounts, Latinos are the nation's fastest growing minority group. About 15 percent of the U.S. population—more than 45 million people—are of Hispanic descent. Although Hispanics are under 10 percent of the U.S. electorate, the Hispanic electorate looms large in several "swing states." According to a Pew Hispanic Center report, Hispanics make up 14 percent of the electorate in Florida, 12 percent in Nevada and Colorado, and 37 percent in New Mexico. There is no mystery to why both parties held Spanish-language debates on Univision. Latinos and Latinas matter.
This Latino(a) demographic boom is not bad news, nor as some might erroneously argue, an ominous sign of an invasion. Still, we cannot ignore the racism that still exists in many communities, Latinos included. Growing up in the "projects" I saw this happen too often. The urban plight often caused Blacks, poor Whites, and Latinos to struggle for resources. Regrettably, there is still a tendency by some in the media, politics, and culture to make the Latino population explosion a menacing sign. My response: scapegoating is not an option. It's time to change the channel to high-definition technicolor and create new solutions. Let's move into a sophisticated conversation that listens to all voices respectfully.
Any candidate that ignores the Latino evangelical electorates is making a serious mistake. Any leader, religious or political, that assumes how Latinos or evangelicals should vote by arguing that one party is the Christian or evangelical party is not speaking the language of the technicolor revival. There is a shift going on among evangelicals, and the more than 8 million Latino evangelicals cannot be easily politically pigeon-holed. Latino evangelicals are seeking an inclusive and broad coalition for social justice that values them at the table. Immigration, HIV/AIDS, issues concerning life, housing, healthcare, genocide, urban ecology, and education are all on their list of priorities. No candidate in 2008 can assume they know how Latino evangelicals will vote.
"Evangelical" and "Latino" need not equal Democrat, Republican, or Independent. This is about a movement that transcends the 2008 election - but will certainly influence it. We seek the beloved community, biblical justice, and the political genius that elevates the national conversation and transcends racial-ethnic divides and partisanship.
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.
This afternoon's top news is Mitt Romney's announcement that he is ending his run for the presidency. Romney's candidacy raised the issue of whether a Mormon could be elected president. The media stories were about evangelicals who didn't like him because they thought Mormonism was an un-Christian sect.
I was born and raised in Michigan. My governor in the late 1960s was George Romney, Mitt's father. He was a moderate Republican, a good governor, and ran for president himself. I never remember his Mormonism being a factor or even an issue of discussion, and his candidacy failed for other reasons.
I also don't believe that Mitt Romney's campaign failed because of his Mormon religion. I have frequently said that no candidate's theology or doctrine should be a factor in voting, but rather the focus should be on their moral compass – what shapes their political values, leadership, and policies. Romney failed by not demonstrating a consistent moral compass, and many didn't believe he had one.
He often changed his positions, depending on whose votes he was trying to get. He was a liberal Republican who was pro-choice and pro-gay rights when he ran for governor of Massachusetts, and then shifted dramatically to being a very conservative Republican with the opposite views when trying to court the conservative Republican base in his run for the presidency. He became the most virulent attacker of undocumented people when he realized the political advantage of that position in the primaries. He became an outside populist against insider Washington when he sensed after the early primaries that change was in the air, and then he became a competent businessman when recession became a leading issue.
Romney's problem was not that he was a Mormon, but that he was a Mormon sitting on top of a weather vane changing his positions every time the wind blew in a different direction. He showed no moral compass people could trust, and his candidacy was doomed.
(Note: This post was updated on February 7, 2008, at 1:35 p.m. following Mitt Romney's decision to suspend his presidential campaign.)
Conservative pundits and Religious Right power-brokers went into extra innings to ensure that Mitt Romney would score some serious home runs on Super Tuesday. As they stepped up to the plate, some of their plays veered into foul territory.
For example, Ann Coulter struck out by stating that if McCain wins the nomination, she will actually campaign for Hillary Clinton. When asked on Inside Edition what she thought of Coulter's compliment, Clinton burst out laughing and then said with a smile, "See I told you I could bring this country together." Some days the material just writes itself.
While Coulter appeared to make this comment tongue in cheek, given her penchant for outrageous antics, I wouldn't rule out the possibility that Coulter could pretend to be "a Hillary girl." After all, this primary season has proven to be full of surprises (for starters, I never thought I'd see Oprah step into the political ring.)
Speaking of unexpected moves, Dr. Dobson hit a sacrifice fly when he proclaimed that if the choice for president boils down to McCain vs. Clinton, he won't vote. Back in April 2007, Religion News Service named Dobson as one of the "Top Ten Religious Right Power Brokers." But as David Kuo comments on his blog, J-Walking, "By putting himself out there so forcefully, Dr. Dobson risks playing the role of Dr. Kevorkian in ushering in the end of the old-line religious right."
Given the Religious Right's ability to reclaim their stronghold in 1994 after the Moral Majority was declared DOA, I don't assume that these lumbering giants can't reawaken from their slumber. But for now, these former godly gurus seem to have lost the spiritual stronghold they once had on the evangelical vote. The Super Tuesday poll results indicated such desperate moves on the part of Dobson and Coulter failed to sway voters to select their preferred candidate. Instead, the Bible Belt voters showed their support for Mike Huckabee, with John McCain following a close second.
Does this mean that their millions of followers are no longer following Dobson and Coulter? Time will tell. I suspect Dobson and Coulter offered their anti-McCain claims with the hopes of convincing virtuous voters into supporting Romney. Given Mitt Romney's poor showing on Super Tuesday, which resulted in his decision to suspend his presidential campaign, clearly Dobson and Coulter's scare tactics failed miserably. Now that it looks very likely that McCain will become the Republican presidential nominee, will Dobson fade into the political background?
Still, something tells me the odds of Ann and Hillary holding hands and singing "It's a Small World" are slim to none. Call it a strong hunch.
Interesting exit poll results from five southern "Bible-belt" states. Of those who identify as "Born-again or evangelical Christians," Mike Huckabee won their votes. In all but one, John McCain came in second, and Mitt Romney third. Here are the numbers:
GA – 64% of R voters 43% - Huckabee 29% - Romney 24% - McCain
AL– 78% of R voters 48 – Huckabee 31 – McCain 16 – Romney
TN – 73% of R voters 41 – Huckabee 26 – McCain 19 – Romney
OK – 73& of R voters 39 – Huckabee 29 – McCain 25 – Romney
ARK– 73% of R voters 63 – Huckabee 19 – McCain 11 – Romney (of course, this is Huckabee's home state)
The conclusion? Despite no support from established Religious Right leaders, Huckabee is winning the evangelical vote. And despite active opposition by James Dobson and others, McCain is coming in second among those voters.
I am deeply disappointed the Republican Party seems poised to select a nominee who did not support a Constitutional amendment to protect the institution of marriage, voted for embryonic stem-cell research to kill nascent human beings, opposed tax cuts that ended the marriage penalty, has little regard for freedom of speech, organized the Gang of 14 to preserve filibusters in judicial hearings, and has a legendary temper and often uses foul and obscene language. ...
But what a sad and melancholy decision this is for me and many other conservatives. Should Sen. McCain capture the nomination as many assume, I believe this general election will offer the worst choices for president in my lifetime. I certainly can't vote for Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama based on their virulently anti-family policy positions. If these are the nominees in November, I simply will not cast a ballot for president for the first time in my life. These decisions are my personal views and do not represent the organization with which I am affiliated. They do reflect my deeply held convictions about the institution of the family, about moral and spiritual beliefs, and about the welfare of our country.
While Dobson maintains that he is endorsing no candidate, Focus and friends have certainly warmed to Romney while criticizing Huckabee. Was Huckabee's social conservatism just not enough to win their support for his economic populism? Reading the list of issues cited above, one wonders if electability had more to do with the Religious Right's support for Romney over Huckabee--since from my understanding neither of them use "foul or obscene language." With results so far seeming to favor McCain over Romney, are there any regrets among these erstwhile kingmakers? At this point, as Dobson threatens a boycott of the presidential vote, one wonders if he wishes he'd been more vocal in his support of Huckabee--who's winning southern states where conservative evangelicals are a strong segment of the electorate.
The earliest reports this evening are from Georgia, where polls closed at 7:00 p.m. CNN reports the exit polls, and they did it again.
The Democratic exit poll asks the standard questions about church attendance (where Barack Obama swept the board among those who attend more than weekly, weekly, monthly, a few times a year, or never), and about religion (Protestant, Catholic, Jewish, other, or none-where Obama also won all categories). In the Republican exit poll, they asked the same two questions, but then also asked whether the person was a "born-again or evangelical Christian").
I've also just looked at the exit polls from Arkansas and Tennessee – same thing. I'm assuming they use the same exit poll in every state, so once again, the media finds it unimportant to ask Democratic voters if they are evangelicals. Maybe they are afraid to because it would probably demolish their received wisdom that all evangelicals are Republicans.
There's something in the air: Super Tuesday. I haven't seen as much interest around a primary election in a long time. Despite the experiences of defeat around issues so important to my low-income community - the fear of recession, the dragged out Iraq war and the billions of dollars diverted for war that we need spent on improving the health and future of our youth - there is an tangible sense of hope and possibilities. As Caroline Kennedy told of her own experience, youth are speaking out to their parents about the future, about the candidates, and getting involved. There will be change in whoever becomes president, and that gives us hope for a new direction for the country, especially in how we spend our money. Remember the "budget are moral documents" efforts?
Having a sense of future is so important, especially in a low-income community. Children's Defense Fund documents that the single most influential factor in reducing teenage pregnancy is youth having a sense of future. A sense of possibilities other than the one-way train to prison is so critical for the young men hanging out of our street corners. But we can't afford to dash the hope and sense of future with false promises. It will be difficult for any president to turn around our war-mongering, our selfish claims to tax relief when others are left out, and our inadequate public education. There are forces that will push the other direction. But, as the saying goes, "Now is the time, and we are the ones we've been waiting for." We have a chance to make a difference.
Cornell West spoke last night, reminding us that we must work hard for our candidate, celebrate victories without rancor, and then take up the task of prophets of old, holding presidents and others accountable to God's justice.
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.
John Edwards ended his campaign this afternoon at the same place he started it and with the same theme—ending poverty as a moral imperative. In the Ninth Ward of New Orleans, Edwards said that he was stepping aside in this presidential campaign, but that he would now continue his life-long work for economic justice. Before announcing his decision, he called both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton to ask for a pledge to make ending poverty central to their campaigns for president and to their presidencies if they are elected.
John Edwards has changed the shape and the agenda of this campaign. He has put the needs of the poor and working families on the political agenda for the first time in many years. His clear and consistent voice has made sure that universal health care, fundamental issues of economic inequality, and the plight of so many Americans who are barely getting by would be on the front burner of this election campaign. John Edwards has championed the poor more than any white presidential candidate since Robert Kennedy did many decades ago. His campaign may be ending today, but he has already shaped the priorities of this election year in a decisive way.
Again today, he reminded us that "we have a moral responsibility to each other," as his valiant wife Elizabeth could be seen wiping a tear from her eyes. Because, he said, "But for the grace of God, there goes us." He called for an end to government "walking away" from poor and working people. Nobody has spoken of the 37 million Americans who wake up every morning in poverty more than John Edwards.
As he was on his way to give the announcement to withdraw from the presidential race, he stopped to talk to some homeless people under a bridge. One woman said, "Promise me you won't forget us." Edwards promised that he wouldn't. I believe him. I have admired John Edwards greatly - especially among the presidential candidates in recent years - and today I was so proud of him once again.
He closed by saying, "This son of a mill worker's gonna be just fine. Our job now is to make certain that America will be fine … it's time for all of us, all of us together, to make the two Americas one." And today he made a commitment for his party (to which he is now likely to continually hold them to account): "We will never forget you. We will fight for you. We will stand up for you." He said to all of those he had heard in the past several days asking him to speak for them, "I want you to know that you almost changed my mind."
The Bible says that a nation will be judged, more than anything else, by how it treats its poorest and most vulnerable. And seldom do we see a political candidate who sounds like a biblical prophet. So I just want to say thank you to John and Elizabeth Edwards. You may not become president this time, but you have been a prophet to the nation and will continue to be. As you said in your closing remarks, your presidential campaign may be over, but it's time to get to work. And I know we will be working together. God bless you both.
Everyday there seems to be some new outrageous charge leveled at Barack Obama. One of the most pernicious is that he is a Muslim who is dishonestly masquerading as a Christian. This charge is so malicious - and so untrue - that it is time to set the record straight.
Barack Obama has never been a Muslim. He has never attended a Muslim school. From about age eight to age nine Obama lived in Indonesia, the most populous Muslim country on earth, with more Muslim schools than one can count, yet his parents chose to enroll him in a secular, non-religious school comprised of teachers and students of all faiths. Nor can it be said that during his brief sojourn in Indonesia that his worldview was tainted by Islamic extremism; when Obama lived there, the practice of Islam in Indonesia was still among the world's most moderate.
Another false charge is that rather than using a Bible to be sworn into his elected office, Senator Obama instead used the Qur'an, the holy book of the Muslim faith. That is also a falsehood. The most cursory check of the facts shows that it was not Barack Obama who was sworn in with a Qur'an. It was Keith Ellison, the proudly Muslim congressman from Minnesota.
But by far the ugliest charge is that Barack Obama is lying about his Christian faith. The truth is that for years now, Barack Obama has been a baptized, fully confessed and practicing Christian, not only with his lips inside a church but, more importantly, with his limbs out in the community - striving to help the neediest and the most vulnerable of our brothers and sisters of all creeds and colors.
It is correct that Obama was not born into the Christian faith. Rather, Barack Obama made a conscious decision as a mature adult to become part of the body of Christ. One measure of the seriousness of his faith is that he has been an active and faithful churchgoer since he embraced the gospel of Jesus Christ as his own.
Dr. Jeremiah Wright - his pastor - a wise, sensitive Christian freedom-fighter (in the very best sense of the word), and a man deeply committed to his faith in Christ, whole-heartedly attests to this, as does every fellow parishioner who has encountered Obama in his home church - the Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago. (By the way, the United Church of Christ is a predominately white mainstream Christian denomination.)
But what is also troubling about all the false information being spread about Obama is its obsession with doctrines and creeds to the apparent detriment of any sense of the spirituality of service. This tragically flawed understanding of Christian faith is apparently more concerned with the fleeting testimony of one's mouth than with the abiding testimony of one's walk in the world. If this was not so, if what was really the concern of those seeking to discredit Obama was that one be a Christian rather than simply bearing the name, then why do they not attack the people "of faith" who tell every listening ear that they are Christians, yet everyday spit on the very tenets that Jesus taught by making greed, self-aggrandizement and treating poor people as children of a lesser God their de facto religion? Why not equally publicly indict the rapacious "prosperity preachers" and fake healers who appear in pulpits and on television weekly to steal from the poor so they themselves can live in imperial luxury like the Roman Caesar, the same Caesar whose empire tortured Jesus to death? According to the teachings of Jesus, transgressions like these are what believers should be exposing and denouncing. Indeed, in Matthew 25:31-46, Jesus makes it clear that betrayal of the poor and the vulnerable is among the worst sins possible. Moreover, there Jesus reveals that if nothing else will get one banished to Hell, hurting - even ignoring - those he calls "the least of these" surely will.
Also in that Matthew 25 passage, Jesus teaches that if we are to judge each other at all, it must be by the standard of whether we are trying to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, and shelter the homeless. That is the gospel's paramount measure of faith, not how much one shouts Jesus' name or how often and how loudly one can recite doctrine and creeds. Jesus taught - and modeled - that what is most important for those who follow him is to spend their time and treasure in this world, engaging in loving, self-sacrificial actions with the express purpose of manifesting God's love and justice on earth as in heaven.
For me, that is the standard by which all those who seek to lead or govern us must be judged.
On Wednesday, Sojourners and Beliefnet, in collaboration with the National Association of Evangelicals Christian Student Leadership Conference, hosted a panel discussion on "Choosing a president: What do evangelicals really want?" I joined Steve Waldman and David Kuo of Beliefnet, Rich Cizik of the NAE, Bishop Harry Jackson of Hope Christian Church and the High Impact Leadership Coalition, Lynne Hybels of the Willow Creek Community Church, Rev. Joel Hunter of Northland Church and former president of the Christian Coalition, Rev. Sam Rodriguez of the National Hispanic Leadership Conference, and Rev. Cheryl Sanders of the Third Street Church of God and Howard University School of Divinity in a 90-minute conversation.
I was honored to be part of the group, and found the discussion informative and inspiring. I encourage you to listen to the entire conversation, but here are my favorite quotes from each of the panelists:
Rich Cizik: "An historic shift is occurring, it's equivalent to an earthquake in slow motion, but people aren't sensing it, the national media hasn't picked up on it … We are no longer single issue voters, and we're not going to blindly follow prominent leaders in the Religious Right, or otherwise, who are telling us what we have to believe."
Harry Jackson: "It's impossible, though, to be a conscience to the entire nation and be partisan as well. So, at some point we've lost our ability to be an impartial conscience to the entire nation."
Lynne Hybels: "It took a very unlikely prophet named Bono to shake me up. It really was a challenge from him that sent me to Africa and really turned my life upside down. It's a shame that it took an Irish rock star to call the church to task on this, but I'm really glad he did. … [In] many of the great global issues like poverty, AIDS, and refugees, women are disproportionately impacted by all these great social global tragedies, and I would like to see women become disproportionately engaged on the solution side. Personally, that is my call to evangelical women – to pay attention to what's going on in the world and get involved."
Joel Hunter: "There is now a maturing of the movement. Any movement starts out with a negative, you're against something. It's kind of like the middle-school years. You define yourself by what you hate, what you're not. And as you grow up, you have to start defining yourself by who you are and what you want to build. That's where we are right now."
Sam Rodriguez: "The major difference between Latino evangelicals and white evangelicals is that many white evangelicals take their marching orders from Bishop Rush Limbaugh, Prophet Sean Hannity, and Apostle Lou Dobbs; and Latino evangelicals still listen to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John."
Cheryl Sanders: "Martin Luther King made this point in his writing and his speeches – he was a Christian, he was a gospel-preaching Christian – and he brought that evangelical message – the social gospel, if we want to call it that – to bear on civil rights, his center of concern, but it included economic justice, health care, and so many of the other things we're concerned about today. … In the history of African Americans and the church, there hasn't really been a time when it was detached from the social and political message."
I am now beginning a 20-city tour to talk about my new book, The Great Awakening: Reviving Faith and Politics in A Post-Religious Right America. The conversation at every stop will be about how real and deep change could happen in this country and around the world—and is already beginning to. And that change begins with our own lives, our congregations and communities, and the kind of social movements that finally move politics. I invite you to come to one of our events, here is detailed city-by-city information on the tour. I'm looking forward to meeting people all around the country to talk about the "revival" that is already occurring and could bring the change and the hope that so many people are clearly longing for in this critical election year and beyond.
This early primary election season has clearly demonstrated the limits of the pollster's predictions, the pundit's prognostications, and the ability of politics to really address our deepest problems.
The polls have gotten it wrong several times now. And the political commentators have wrongly told us what was going or not going to happen so many times that many have just stopped listening. Obama would never catch up to Clinton's inevitability - then he won Iowa. The Clinton dynasty was finished and Obama was about to march to the nomination on pure momentum and inspiration - then Clinton won New Hampshire. Edwards would be strong in the early primaries - quickly it was a two-person race between Obama and Clinton. McCain was pronounced dead this summer by all the political talking heads - now his staff calls him "Lazarus," with comeback victories in New Hampshire and Florida. Romney was finished after investing so much in Iowa and New Hampshire and losing - then he won the next two contests. Huckabee wasn't worth covering until two months ago - then he shocked the establishment by winning Iowa. But then he failed to win South Carolina, where his evangelical base is the strongest. Thompson was the re-incarnation of Ronald Reagan - until he "fizzled." Giuliani was the early frontrunner - until he wasn't anymore, but may be again if he wins Florida, or not.
Iraq was to be a big campaign issue, and then it faded. Health care was big early on but isn't so much now. Race and gender bickering recently broke out between the potential first woman and first black president. Now the fear of recession is the big issue and "It's the economy, stupid," all over again. Change beat experience early on but experience and competence have made a comeback. And ALL the pundits said the early front-loaded primary season would produce clear nominees by early February. Now they talk about what fun it would be for journalists to have nominations go all the way to the conventions. Maybe this is all about their fun.
But have the following issues been primary in this primary election season: the shameful scandal of global poverty and the embarrassment of a growing number of poor families in America; the increasingly urgent threat of global warming; the horrendous costs of the war in Iraq and the consequences of a foreign policy that relies exclusively on war to fight evil; the gross violations of human life in places like Darfur, the Congo, and Kenya; the need for a bi-partisan effort to dramatically reduce abortion rates; the corruption of the popular culture and its daily assault upon our families and children? Nope.
All this points again to the fact that real change will never begin in Washington nor be simply a top-down process. I live in the nation's capital and, believe me, this will be the last place change comes. But it has always been like that. Change will grow from social movements, from grassroots efforts that rush up, not trickle down, and from critical culture and values shifts that ultimately will affect politics. Awakening the faith community, for example, to the biblical vision of social justice and the moral imperatives to address poverty, creation care, human rights, culture renewal, and a better way to combat evil in the world will more likely lead to deeper change than mere lobbying on Capitol Hill.
That's why I am excited to begin a 20-city tour to talk about my new book, The Great Awakening: Reviving Faith and Politics in A Post-Religious Right America. The conversation at every stop will be about how real and deep change could happen in this country and around the world—and is already beginning to. And that change begins with our own lives, our congregations and communities, and the kind of social movements that do finally move politics. The book lays out not a laundry list of "issues" but rather a set of seven commitments that could lead to a "tipping point" on the greatest moral challenges of our time. Each of those seven chapters ends with "The Commitment" which describes what individuals and families can do, how congregations and community groups must lead, and then how changes in public policy must be the result.
It's a hopeful book, because I am very encouraged about what I see happening all over the country, despite the limits of politics already apparent in this early primary season. The Great Awakening describes the "revival" that is already occurring and could bring the change and the hope that so many people are clearly longing for in this critical election year and beyond. I hope this book gives you as much hope in reading it as I found in researching and writing it. It's the story of change from the bottom up—change that is a matter of faith.
Tim Burton's striking and gruesome film adaptation of Stephen Sondheim's musical 'Sweeney Todd' made me feel alternately impressed by Johnny Depp's singing talent and wince at the violence. The story of a 19th century barber who avenges the loss of his wife and daughter by providing the closest shave ever to a litany of customers including the judge who caused his pain left me preoccupied by thoughts closer to home.
If the film is trying to make a serious point, it is that Sweeney's spiral of violence never ends. The previous night I had attended a meeting of the Consultative Group on the Past – a body established by the UK Government to examine methods of helping the people of Northern Ireland to address the legacy of our own violent recent history. Two things were clear from the comments made at this meeting by members of the public: first, that the levels of genuine sorrow in this society are unfathomable – families ripped apart, minds taken to the edge of destruction, small communities shattered. This is real, and not interpretation. Second, we often lack the ability to empathise with the pain of the 'other' community. It is all too easy to see 'our' pain as exclusive, and to become blind to the suffering of the community on the other side of a political divide.
This is as true in situations of deep horror – such as the killing and mayhem that plagued Northern Ireland for so long – as it is for more benign contexts – such as political campaigning. I was impressed by Mike Huckabee's empathetic comments when he was asked to respond to the now well-known moment when Hillary Clinton teared up in New Hampshire. He made the common sense point that politics is tough, and that it's easy to become emotional on the campaign trail. He even risked the wrath of those who appear dedicated to brutalizing politics by acknowledging, as if it needed to be said, that Hillary Clinton is a human being and needs to be treated more humanely. I seem to recall him suggesting at a previous debate that if he were to fund a NASA mission to Mars he would want Hillary to be the first person on the rocket; so his more tender response to her tears is welcome.
Joking aside, what is the connection between 'Sweeney Todd', dealing with the past in Northern Ireland, and the US Presidential campaign? I think it's simple: a cynical world breeds the opposite of empathy. And where there is no empathy with those whom we feel are different, the killing can begin. History shows us that where no attempts are made to resurrect empathy as a meaningful part of politics, the killing may never stop. Obviously, politics requires a degree of robust debate; but all too often our political discourse is reduced to mocking, dehumanizing, or in some cases, let's face it, even killing our opponents. The serious questions I want to ask are: What would it mean to restore empathy with 'the other side' to our politics? What have we got to lose? What have we got to gain?
Gareth Higgins is a Christian writer and activist in Belfast, Northern Ireland. For the past decade he was the founder/director of the zero28 project, an initiative addressing questions of peace, justice, and culture. He is the author of the insightful How Movies Helped Save My Soul and blogs at www.godisnotelsewhere.blogspot.com
An unfortunate exchange of words between the campaigns of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama this week threatened to explode into real conflict, involving the always volatile U.S. issue of race. The dust-up was as unexpected as it was unfortunate, and was sparked in part by comments made about the respective roles of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and President Lyndon Johnson in achieving the historic goals of the civil rights movement. But race is the wrong way to view this escalating war of words (with operatives on both sides doing their political jobs of trying to gain from the controversy). Both of these candidates have records on civil rights and racial justice that deserve to be trusted. The truly historic significance of an African American and a woman emerging as leading candidates for president should not be diminished by bad campaign exchanges over race and gender. In last night's debate, they returned to higher ground.
The real issue here is the more complicated relationship between social movements and national politics; between moral leaders and elected officials in bringing about social and political change.
The great practitioners of social change - like Martin Luther King Jr. and Mahatma Gandhi - understood something very important. They knew that you don't change a society by merely replacing one politician with another. You change a society by changing the political wind. Change the wind, transform the debate, recast the discussion, alter the context in which political decisions are being made, and you will change the outcomes. Move the conversation around a crucial issue to a whole new place, and you will open up possibilities for change never dreamed of before. And you will be surprised at how fast the politicians adjust to the change in the wind.
The story of the passage of the Voting Rights Act in 1965 is a good historical example.
Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. had just won the Nobel Peace Prize and was ready to come home from Norway. The freedom movement had achieved a great victory in securing the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and King was honored as the newest Nobel laureate. But the civil rights leader decided to stop by Washington, D.C., before heading back home to Atlanta—because he needed to meet with the president of the United States, Lyndon Baines Johnson.
King told Johnson that the next step on the road to freedom was a voting rights act, without which black Americans in the South would never be able to really change their communities. But the nation's master of realpolitik told the U.S.'s moral leader that he couldn't deliver a voting rights act. Johnson said he had cashed in all his "chits" with the southern senators to get the civil rights law passed and that he had no political capital left. It would be five or 10 years, the president told King, before a voting rights act would be politically possible. But we can't wait that long, said King. Without voting rights, civil rights couldn't be fully realized. I'm sorry, Johnson reportedly told King, but a voting rights law just wasn't politically realistic. They would have to wait.
But Martin Luther King Jr. was not one to simply complain, withdraw, or give up. Instead, King and the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC) began organizing—in a little town nobody had ever heard of called Selma, Alabama.
On one fateful day, SCLC leaders marched right across the Edmund Pettus Bridge, alongside the people of Selma, to face the notorious Sheriff Jim Clark and his virtual army of angry white police. On what would be called Bloody Sunday, a young man (and now congressman from Atlanta) named John Lewis was beaten almost to death, and many others were injured or jailed.
Two weeks later, in response to that brutal event, hundreds of clergy from all across the nation and from every denomination came to Selma and joined in the Selma to Montgomery march. Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel came down from New York to march beside the black Baptist minister Martin Luther King Jr.
The whole nation was watching. The eyes of the U.S. were focused on Selma, as they had been on Birmingham before the civil rights law was passed. And after the historic Selma to Montgomery march for freedom, it took only five months, not five years or 10, to pass a new voting rights act: the Voting Rights Act of 1965. King had changed the wind.
It was a great thing that Johnson responded to the challenge as he did (other presidents might not have), but it was King, not Johnson, who had painted a vivid picture for the world to see that changed the winds of public opinion and made a voting rights act now possible. The Selma campaign had transfixed the nation, dramatically shifted the public debate, and fundamentally altered the political context to make a new voting rights law politically realistic.
It is a good lesson for this year's presidential race. Change must go deeper than politics. In fact, unless change goes deeper, politics won't really change. No matter which candidate finally wins this presidential election, he or she will not be able to really change the big things in the U.S. and the world that must be changed, unless and until there are social movements pushing for those changes from outside of politics. Because when politics fails to resolve or even address the most significant moral issues, what often occurs is that social movements rise up to change politics; and the best social movements always have spiritual foundations.
Even a candidate who runs on change, really wants it, and goes to Washington to make it, will confront a vast array of powerful forces which will do everything possible to prevent real change. Politics is unlikely to be changed merely from within - no matter who wins, and no matter how sincere they are, we will not see significant change unless, and until, the pressure increases from the outside. Remember, President Lyndon Johnson didn't become a civil rights leader until Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and Rosa Parks made him one.
The upcoming primary in South Carolina will be critical for both the Democrats and the Republicans, say the media pundits. And South Carolina is full of evangelicals, they also say. But they have absolutely no clue about what that means.
For example, the exit polls in the Iowa caucus and New Hampshire primary have asked departing Republican voters if they are "evangelicals," but they don't ask the same question of exiting Democrats—therefore assuming there aren't any evangelicals voting for Democrats, an assumption that is demonstrably not true. The leading Democrats in the race—Obama, Clinton, and Edwards—speak explicitly and articulately as Christians and their campaigns have reached out as much to faith communities as the Republicans have.
The media experts on religion then go on to explain to us that evangelicals care mostly or only about abortion and gay marriage, and not about other issues. That is even more mistaken. The issues that most concern evangelicals today, especially a younger generation, include poverty, the environment and climate change, human rights, and the morality of a foreign policy where war is the first resort. This year those issues are drawing a growing number of evangelicals to consider the Democratic candidates.
By omitting the question of evangelical/born-again identification from the Democratic polls, you prevented the public from seeing the full picture of how the bipartisan courtship of evangelical voters affected the outcome of the first contest of the 2008 campaign and perpetuated the misperception that all evangelical Christians are Republicans. No party can own any faith. Evangelicals have broadened their agenda to include care for the planet, the poor and the stranger, and as a result are increasingly diverse politically.
One of the leading Republicans, of course, is Mike Huckabee, who is also an outspoken evangelical. Huckabee recently spoke to Reuters about the broadening evangelical agenda:
Unquestionably there is a maturing that is going on within the evangelical movement. It doesn't mean that evangelicals are any less concerned about traditional families and the sanctity of life. It just means that they also realize that we have real responsibility in areas like disease and hunger and poverty and that these are issues that people of faith have to address.
Yet the media, which is paying such close attention to Huckabee, doesn't seem to pay any attention to that. You might conclude that the media still just doesn't understand much about religion and the enormous changes taking place among evangelicals in particular. So far, the media analysts and prognosticators about South Carolina are about as accurate and credible as their insightful and confident predictions about the expected results from the New Hampshire primary. Will the media celebrities ever really listen to the American people or just tell us how we are going to vote? Religion could, indeed, play a major role in the outcome of the South Carolina primary, on both sides of the aisle. But our non-stop talking heads in the media parallel universe and the professional polling truth inventors haven't got a clue about how.
The report's findings show that of the 2,253 questions that were asked in the Republican and Democratic debates through Dec. 27, only 5.1% of the questions posed to candidates dealt with human rights issues (CAPAF called their definition of what constituted a human rights issue "a generous interpretation" -- it included topics such as Darfur, torture, genocide in Iraq, and promoting democracy). This was in contrast to the 8.6% of questions about immigration, 10.7% on moral issues such as abortion and same-sex marriage, and 18.1% about general personal politics and party values.
In the report, William F. Schulz, a CAPAF senior fellow and former executive director of Amnesty International, offers a possible explanation for this marginal attention:
Human rights issues have rarely, if ever, been a principal focus of political campaigns for President or even for Congress. This reflects the fact that human rights are often perceived to be matters involving people far away whose needs and interests have very little relevance to our own.
However, he argues that human rights issues, such as the genocide in Darfur and military torture, do in fact have an impact on us here in the U.S. and should be a more prominent focus in the current presidential campaign:
Many U.S. actions have colored the attitude of the international community toward America and thereby implicated U.S. national interests quite directly: the "unsigning" of the treaty establishing the International Criminal Court; the U.S. prison camp at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba; the denial of habeas corpus to certain prisoners; revelations regarding U.S. use of torture. Moreover, the continuing saga of unstaunched death and destruction in Darfur, Sudan, has cast a pall over the reputation of every country that has failed to stop it.
One might assume that human rights would have been more central to the 2008 presidential campaigns to this point than in years past given the relationship of human rights controversies to U.S. policy and interests—the fact, for example, that how the world regards this country can have a very direct impact on America's national security, and the need, in light of Iraq and Darfur, to clarify when in the future the U.S. should commit its blood and treasure to countering regimes that abuse human rights.
Here at Sojourners, human rights issues, such as the genocide in Darfur and human trafficking, are incredibly important. They are not issues that "have little relevance to our own;" instead, they are central to our mission as people of faith to follow Christ's example of fighting for and working with the poor, rejected, and forgotten.
Despite the disheartening findings of the CAPAF report, I think change IS happening. This shift in values, the desire to focus on ending and eradicating these huge moral issues of our time, is happening. As a member of the progressive faith community, I hear a lot of discourse about this movement that we see happening all across the country, this "great awakening," this spiritual revival that is sparking a social movement.
But you don't have to take our word for it. All of the panelists at the CAPAF event yesterday affirmed that change is happening, and that a lot of progress has been made just in recent months to make these human rights issues compelling national values. In fact, two of the panelists, Gary Haugen, president of the International Justice Mission, and Gayle Smith, co-founder of the ENOUGH! Project, specifically singled out people of faith as being leaders in bringing about this change.
"We're seeing some shift in terms of what values are all about, from values as a matter of personal choice to values as an expression of solidarity and global citizenship," Smith said. "There is the beginning in the faith community of a translation of values from, again, within the four walls of our homes to the far reaches of the globe." Smith cited the increase in attention to the genocide in Darfur as one tangible example.
Haugen agreed, saying that the religious community has contributed to "a broadening of issues to include human rights and international human rights" in the national conversation. He also talked directly about the impact faith had in the abolition and civil rights movements, and how the spiritual foundation of those movements provided a "very profound motivator for sustaining a prolonged, successful fight."
"Religion can be a conviction to force us to act on hard, painful issues. It is a very powerful, sustaining, motivating force," Haugen continued. A force that is having a clear effect again now, he said.
It's true that issues such as genocide and global poverty are big and seemingly insurmountable. But, as the event reaffirmed for me yesterday, ultimately we have the conviction and force to win this fight.
Sometimes, politics becomes so broken that the hunger for change becomes overwhelming. That's what is happening this year. And it's not just about one or two candidates now. Barack Obama and Mike Huckabee changed the political narrative with dramatic wins in Iowa, making the call for a change in politics into the 2008 paradigm. John Edwards has been a fundamental "change candidate" since the beginning of his campaign. And since Iowa, even political veterans like Hillary Clinton and John McCain, who both won last night in New Hampshire, did so by also claiming the mantle of change - with her saying that she has the experience to actually make change and not just "hope" for it, and with him saying that he has always been a thorn in the side of official Washington. Mitt Romney, who lost again in New Hampshire, started calling himself a change candidate, and Rudy Giuliani has been quick to make a claim to being a Washington outsider.
But while the candidates will now battle to convince voters that each has the vision and the capacity to really bring change; it is absolutely clear that change has already won this election. The voters have spoken and they want a new direction. Seventy percent of the country has consistently said they believe America is moving in the wrong direction, ninety-two percent of Democrats feel that way, and fifty-three percent of Republicans agree.
But as people of faith, we know that the change must go deeper than politics. In fact, unless change goes deeper, politics won't really change. And no matter which candidate finally wins this presidential election, he or she will not be able to really change the big things in the U.S. and the world that must be changed, unless and until there is a real movement pushing for those changes from outside of politics. Because when politics fails to resolve or even address the most significant moral issues, what often occurs is that social movements rise up to change politics; and the best social movements always have spiritual foundations.
Even a candidate who runs on change, really wants it, and goes to Washington to make it, will confront a vast array of powerful forces which will do everything possible to prevent real change. And, to be really honest, there are too many bad habits, negative choices, and cynical resignations in us as people that also serve as an obstacle to change. That's why I believe that it will take a new spiritual revival to finally make serious social change really possible. Changing hearts and minds and forging a constituency who will demand nothing less than a new direction. Remember, President Lyndon Johnson didn't become a civil rights leader until Martin Luther King Jr. and Rosa Parks made him one. And that's what we need again now.
In his speech last night in New Hampshire, Barack Obama said, "Change is what's happening in America." The crowd chanted back, "We want change!" over and over. At the Clinton headquarters, enthusiastic supporters waved signs which read "Ready for Change." John Edwards, who finished third last night, called on U.S. citizens to take back their country from those who have stolen democracy. And the Republican winner, John McCain, spoke of restoring the U.S.'s honor again.
Bless all their hearts. But political leaders in Washington have changed the U.S. less often than social movements have. The U.S. is signaling it is hungry for change again, and we will need to build the kind of spiritual and social movement that can deliver on that hope. Last night, Barack Obama said, "it's also about what you, the people who love this country, can do to change it." And he's right; it is really all about us.
The new political buzzword is change. Every candidate claims to be the change candidate—and every pundit is contrasting "change" with "establishment." In the midst of the change-din, I would like to suggest that there is an important question to ask the candidates: "How will you lead change?"
Harvard leadership professor Ronald Heifetz has identified two major approaches to change: technical fixes and adaptive change. In her fine book, Leadership Can Be Taught, Sharon Daloz Parks describes Heifetz' distinction between the two.
Leaders who change through technical fixes believe that problems can be solved "with knowledge and procedures already in hand." Technical leaders emphasize expertise, education, and experience as key to resolving difficult issues. They also think that solutions to problems already exist. Leaders must employ solid techniques or processes to make things right. In this model, a technical-fix politician would try to convince voters of his or her competence, management skill, and problem-solving track record.
In contrast, adaptive change-type leaders believe that complex problems "require new learning, innovation, and new patterns." In this mode, "leadership is the activity of mobilizing people to address adaptive challenges." According to this leadership theory adaptive problems are "swamp issues," complex problems involving multiple levels of difficulty that elude regular routines and established platforms. According to Parks, adaptive leaders "call for changes of heart and mind—the transformation of long-standing habits and deeply held assumptions and values."
The presidential candidates all talk about change. But they appear to be talking past one another. Adaptive leaders baffle technical leaders. Technical leaders strike adaptive leaders are cold or mechanical. Yet all the candidates—and the media covering them—speak of "change" as if it has a single definition and that merely invoking it can somehow summon the voters' affections. It is not enough to say one is "ready for change" or that "Washington is broken." How do they intend to lead change? Will they change things by tinkering with systems—attempting to fix what already exists? Or do they believe that existing structures have failed and they must grapple with entirely new ways of thinking and open the way for unexpected solutions to arise?
It appears clear that voters are casting their ballots for adaptive leadership. Although adaptive leaders draw on many skills, two of the most significant include "authenticity and integrity" and "inspiring a sense of commonality amidst diversity." The candidates who understand this appear to be winning the larger cultural argument about change: Change is not about skillful technique; rather, change is about transformation, a new way of seeing and being in the world.
And that is a change that people of faith should cheer.
I'm volunteering for a presidential candidate, mostly making phone calls to people in various states at volunteer headquarters. It is encouraging to work with people of all ages, walks of life, and races - people who, like me, were sideliners who are now enthusiastically involved with a sense of possibilities, believing that our efforts make a difference and things can change. My afternoon phone calls primarily reach elderly or others who are homebound. What a slice of the U.S.: "Organ" recitals (my kidneys, etc.), mad, lonely, sad, and hopeful. One sometimes gets the phone slammed down, or comments unbefitting of a U.S. citizen - "I'll never vote for a black or a woman" - but mostly people are pondering, reflecting on what's important to them and wanting better things for themselves and the country. There's the longing for peace and fairness. A recent Sunday's Psalm reading reflects the prayers of all of us for good leadership. Psalm 72 (I am using "president" in place of "king"):
Please help the president be honest and fair, just like you, our God. Let the president be honest and fair with all your people, especially the poor. Let peace and justice rule every mountain and hill. Let the president defend the poor, rescue the homeless, and crush everyone who hurts them. ... Let the president be fair with everyone, and let there be peace until the moon falls from the sky.
Through this daunting election year, may we be praying for leadership that reflects the Psalmist's hope for peace, fairness, and honesty - especially for the poor.
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.
Last night, Iowa voted for change - dramatic change – in American politics. Democrat Barack Obama won decisively, and Republican Mike Huckabee won almost miraculously. John Edwards, the second place winner in the Democratic caucuses, continued the theme of change in his speech last night. And in her speech, third place candidate Hillary Clinton made the case that experience makes her the best person to really make change in Washington. Change won.
Despite being outspent 15 to one, former Governor Mike Huckabee came from nowhere to virtually crush Mitt Romney and every other Republican front-runner in Iowa. In his speech, Huckabee announced "a new day in American politics." He said the Iowa results showed that it "wasn't about who raised the most money but who raised the greatest hopes and dreams and aspirations for our children and their future." And "hope" was the overwhelming theme of the victory speech by Barack Obama, who said that hope is "the bedrock of America" and that the Iowa results showed that hope has "beaten back the politics of fear, doubt, and cynicism. In remarks one commentator called "soaring," Obama said, "We are choosing hope over fear, we're choosing unity over division and sending a powerful message that change is coming to America." Edwards said, "The one thing that's clear from the results in Iowa tonight is the status quo lost and change won." Huckabee said, "Their choice was clear - it was a choice for change."
Barack Obama, of course, is an African American who won what news reports called an impressive victory in a state that is 95 percent white. He won overwhelmingly with a new generation of voters by calling for a new kind of politics in the U.S. that would overcome the partisan deadlocks and ideological battles of the present and find real solutions to social problems. Mike Huckabee combined social conservatism with economic populism in a new kind of Republican agenda that none of the party's establishment supported - but the grassroots did. Interestingly, Obama and Huckabee both called for bipartisan cooperation. Both talked about moving past both the left and the right. Obama and Huckabee said it's not about them but about their supporters who want change. Huckabee said it's "not about the ruling class but a serving class." Obama said, "They said this day would never come. …They said this country was too divided and too disillusioned. ... We are one nation, we are one people, and our time for change has come." Both Obama and Huckabee said that it's time to move beyond the bitterness and division. Obama called for a "coalition for change that stretches through red states and blue states" and Huckabee called for virtually the same thing. The Republican insurgent said that we need "to give our kids a better future, to give this world a better leader, and we join together tonight for that purpose." Edwards said later on the Larry King Live show that the results showed "the huge momentum toward a change candidate."
I believe that the results in Iowa show how hungry the country is for dramatic change in U.S. politics, even in Middle America. Nobody had anything good to say about the leadership of the present administration.
But the forces arrayed against real change in the U.S. are most formidable. Politics is unlikely to be changed merely from within - no matter who wins, and no matter now sincere they are, we will not see significant change unless, and until, we have a real social movement for change from outside of politics. And those kind of social movements usually have spiritual foundations. That movement has already begun and building it is now our primary task.
Now that the people of Iowa have chosen Republican Mike Huckabee and Democrat Barack Obama as their nominees for president, pundits will spend much of the next few days (until New Hampshire at least) analyzing the results. Many will note religion as an important factor—especially as evangelicals turned out largely for Huckabee.
But evangelicals are not the only religion story from Iowa. Mike Huckabee and Barack Obama represent something much more profound in American politics and religion. With Huckabee as a Southern Baptist and Obama as a member of the United Church of Christ, the two men symbolize the poles of Protestantism, the divided soul of America's majority religion.
In the late 19th century, American Protestantism divided into fundamentalist and modernist camps. In the political realm, fundamentalists believed that personal conversion was the foundation of politics. If Jesus changed individuals, individuals might change society if God so called them. But they more typically shied away from politics as sinful, defining it as an essentially hopeless enterprise. They eschewed social change in favor of a kind of feisty Jesus-centered ethics of personal responsibility, private prayer, and morality. They bemoaned the possibility of political change without being born again.
Modernist Protestants argued that politics existed as part of larger social structures—economic, social, and class systems. These structures were corrupted by sin and injustice. Yet, they could be transformed through human goodness and God's justice. Instead of emphasizing individual morality, modernist Protestants extolled a political theology of the common good regardless of personal faith. As a result, they stressed hope, change, and the future in their politics—and its communal emphasis tended to resonate with African-American Protestants.
During the last century, these two visions have gone through several historical permutations. However, they continue to shape American Protestantism. As a Southern Baptist, Huckabee emphasizes Christian conversion, personal morality, and individual character. Obama, as part of a liberal denomination, articulates the communal vision of progressive Protestantism, appealing to human goodness, optimism, and social justice. Whereas Huckabee speaks of the "zeal" of individuals to "do the right thing" and act heroically, Obama preaches on "building a coalition" to transform the nation through innovation and creating a new global community. They are replaying, in dynamic new voices, an old disagreement in American religion.
The Iowa winners represent the two major traditions of Protestant political theology. If Huckabee and Obama wind up as presidential nominees, it would be the first time since the Great Protestant Divide that candidates so clearly articulated these two versions of religion and politics—and so clearly have the opportunity to reshape an old argument. Although it is far too early to make such predictions, the next election could be a referendum on the Protestant political soul.
This evening, the presidential election of 2008 officially begins with the Iowa caucuses—intense political contests taking place in every county of that Midwestern state. The national campaign, of course, has already been going on for many months (with the earliest start in the history of presidential politics), but now the endless polling will be replaced by actual election results in state caucuses and primaries. Iowa is the starting gun in the political battle that leads to the party nominations, the fall campaign, and a November election that many believe to be the most important in years.
I believe the religious landscape of the 2008 political year will be dramatically different than it was in the 2004 election. And it's quite amazing how much the issue of faith and politics has changed in such a short time. There are two fundamental shifts which have occurred and, taken together, they constitute a real sea change in American politics.
First, in what TIME magazine has called "a leveling of the praying field" the Democrats now speak as much about faith and values as the Republicans do. For example, it has been the Democratic presidential candidates who have devoted the most time in outreach to faith communities in the early primary states of Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina - not the Republicans. We have seen top level faith outreach operations as central to the Democratic candidates' campaign strategies and decision-making, their "faith forums" in primary states, newsletters on family and values, and even gospel music tours. All three Democratic front-runners have spoken quite comfortably about their personal faith and its relationship to public life in national forums and debates, at religious institutions and congregations, and in media interviews. Hillary Clinton and John Edwards frequently speak of their history as committed lay persons in their denomination and know the religious community as their own; and Barack Obama sometimes sounds like a public theologian. All three, as well as other Democratic candidates, have explicitly connected their faith to a broad range of issues from poverty to health care, criminal justice, HIV/AIDS, human rights, and to war and peace.
In a striking contrast this year, the Republican Party, which has so associated itself with religion and "values voters" in recent years, has had a serious "God and marriage problem," as many have pointed out. Several of the Republican frontrunners like John McCain, Rudy Giuliani, and Fred Thompson have often seemed uncomfortable and awkward when the language of faith comes up, and, as many have noted, the only one among the early Republican frontrunners with a history of just one wife was the Mormon, Mitt Romney, whose minority religion is suspect among many conservative evangelicals. The candidate with the strongest Christian identity, former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee, couldn't get the backing of the key leaders of Religious Right and finally surged to the top tier by appealing on his own to the grassroots religious base of the party in places like Iowa and South Carolina. The contrast from 2004, when many in the GOP were describing theirs as "God's own party," is quite stunning.
It is now much clearer that "God is not a Republican or a Democrat," as our bumper sticker from the last campaign read; and that is a good thing. There should be no religious litmus tests for politics - committed Christians will, and should be, on both sides of the political aisle. Indeed, people of faith should never be in any party's or candidate's political pocket and should, ideally, be the ultimate swing vote because of their moral independence from partisan politics. Let's all try to remember that this political year.
Martin Luther once said that he would rather be governed by a competent Turk than by an incompetent Christian, which is a good piece of wisdom to keep in mind this or any election year. What a candidate's moral compass is should be more important than his/her theology or the doctrines of his/her religious tradition. What kind of leader will a candidate be, what are his/her guiding personal and social values, and what is his/her strength of character? These are all key questions.
Second, and even more important than the religious identities of the candidates on either side, is how the agenda of faith communities has undergone a very significant shift. Very clearly, abortion and gay marriage are not the only overriding "moral issues" for many people of faith now, though the sanctity of life (more consistently applied) and healthy families (without scapegoats) are still critical concerns. But now other key moral and religious issues have taken on great importance in the agendas of faith communities. These issues include both global and domestic poverty, pandemic diseases which ravage the developing world, the extreme violations of human rights in places like Darfur, the alarming threats of climate change and the imperatives of "creation care" of the environment, and the need for a more ethical response to the genuine threats of terrorism and a foreign policy more consistent with our best moral values.
Many recent polls show that the votes of millions in the faith community are "in play" this election season, and whichever candidate - Democrat or Republican - speaks the language of moral values and seriously addresses the wider and deeper religious agenda will find resonance this year among the faithful. And for many in the faith community, both character and competence really both matter in choosing the next president. I hear strong positive responses among people of faith when they see the qualities of moral leadership in presidential candidates.
On the Democratic side, I hear great appreciation for John Edwards' passionate and persistent commitment to make poor people a political priority and his challenging the control of the wealthy and powerful over our political process. I hear great attraction, especially among a younger generation, to Barack Obama's call for change to a new kind of politics, beyond left and right, which actually finds solutions to our most pressing problems; and for the first African American President. And I see a real appeal, especially among women, for Hillary Clinton's persistent commitment to issues like children and health care, along with her experience and readiness that says a woman could be the president of the U.S. for the very first time. All three have been willing to challenge the secular rejection of religion and values talk which still exists in their party, and, in the general election, whoever secures the Democratic nomination will be watched carefully by the religious community to see if they will also take on other party orthodoxies on issues like abortion.
One of the highpoints for me of the campaign thus far came in a Republican debate where both Mike Huckabee and John McCain defended the humanity of undocumented people in the midst of an extended attack on "illegal aliens" by other candidates. In the face of some of the most heated rhetoric, John McCain asked his colleagues to remember that the people they were all talking about were "also the children of God." And in defending his inclusion of the children of the undocumented in his state's scholarship programs, Mike Huckabee stood his ground and said the U.S. was not the kind of country that punished children for the mistakes of their parents. Both have been willing to challenge their party on other issues too - McCain supports both comprehensive immigration and campaign finance reform; and Huckabee was recently accused of being a "Christian socialist" by a leading economic conservative because of how he spent money on poor people in Arkansas. One political commentator on the Republican side told me he thought McCain and Huckabee have been rising in the polls because of the "character" they have shown in these debates. On the other hand, despite Rudy Giuliani's popularity in the Republican polls, conservative evangelical leaders like Richard Land insist that their constituency will not vote for him, not merely because of his stances on abortion and gay marriage, but because of his own marital behavior and history. And the evangelical concerns I hear about Mitt Romney are less about his Mormon religion than whether his changes on key moral issues for them are ultimately trustworthy.
All of that suggests that moral values will indeed be a key criteria for religious and "values voters" this election season; but that the definition and range of those moral values will be much wider and deeper than ever before. This time, more than any election in many years, the votes of many in the faith community are still undecided and will be influenced by whoever can win their support with a genuine moral discourse on politics and an agenda of both social and political transformation.
It happened again. A presidential candidate's debate in two languages. Just as the Democratic presidential candidates had done before, the Republicans have followed suit - a presidential candidates debate on Spanish-language channel, Univision. (Tom Tancredo was the only candidate who did not attend the debate). I blogged on the earlier Democratic debate and thought it only equitable to do the same again.
I think what is critical here in both nationally-televised debates is a healthy model of dialogue that is necessary on the national scene. This dialogue says we respect your culture and language. Allowing for your thoughts and words to be translated into another language can be a metaphor for inclusion and welcoming. I am not arguing that English should not be spoken (All the candidates answered in English and most immigrants work hard to learn English, cf: Pew research, etc.) What I am saying is that as a country we are looking for is conversations and policies that respect the dignity of the other.
As a person of faith, pastor, and follower of Jesus Christ, I am desirous of respectful debate and dialogue. On blogs, radio-shows, and political advertisements ideological and theological differences have often reduced some to more base temptations of demonizing the other (be they Republican, Democrat, immigrant, citizen, male or female). Frankly, this is not consistent with the gospel and a call to love our neighbor and even our enemies. Jesus even said, "Love your enemies." As a people we need to move beyond the childish temptation to dehumanize those we disagree with.
Dignity means you both speak and listen. Dignity may help us see someone who is radically different from us and call them by their name. Dignity transcends political ideologies and racial, ethnic, and geographic boundaries. Dignity is a faithful witness to a faith that says, "Por que de tal manera amó Dios al mundo (For God so loved the world….)"
Speaking in Spanish, Korean, Mandarin, German, etc. is a linguistic affirmation that God loves the world. Presidential candidates need not speak these languages but simply affirm the humanity and dignity of those who do.
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.
In what may be the defining moment of his campaign, Mitt Romney, the former governor of Massachusetts and a Mormon, addressed the issue of faith and its bearing on his pursuit of the presidency. Pundits inevitably compared Romney's speech in College Station, Texas, with the speech that John F. Kennedy gave just down the road at the Rice Hotel, Houston, on September 12, 1960.
The parallels are unmistakable. Both men felt compelled to address what was openly discussed as the "religious issue" in 1960. Both men were reared in a tradition different from Protestantism, which claims the allegiance of at least a plurality (if not a majority) of Americans.
But the parallels end there. Unlike Mormonism, Roman Catholicism was well known to most Americans in 1960, although many Protestants had a jaundiced view of the Roman Catholic Church. Many Americans, by contrast, know little about Mormonism, officially named the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Many Americans see Mormons as strange and secretive; their temples, for instance, are closed to "gentiles" (non-Mormons). The Mormon notion of God as both male and female, baptism for the dead, and even the practice of wearing Mormon underwear (thought by many to have protective powers) strike many as unorthodox, if not downright bizarre.
For evangelicals, some tenets of Mormonism are particularly troubling. Mormons accept the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament) and the New Testament as divinely inspired, but they believe that the Book of Mormon, discovered by Joseph Smith in Palmyra, New York, in 1827, is similarly inspired. And Mormons believe that the president of the Latter-day Saints is the conduit for continuing inspiration. Evangelicals, on the other hand, view the Bible (Old and New Testaments), as the "word of God" and their sole religious authority. For another religious group to add to the canon of scripture strikes most evangelicals as utter blasphemy.
These suspicions do not augur well for Romney. Politically conservative evangelical voters are a core constituency for the Republican Party. In order to win the Republican nomination, Romney needs the support of conservative evangelicals, especially in Iowa.
Throughout the early months of the campaign, Romney sought to downplay his faith, protesting that he was not a spokesman for Mormonism. But many voters, evangelicals especially, have not been mollified – which led him to the dais of the George Bush Library in Texas this morning to deliver his "JFK speech."
Two of the most compelling arguments central to Kennedy's speech in 1960, however, are not available to Romney. Kennedy unequivocally affirmed his "absolute" support for the separation of church and state, and he also foreswore government support for religious schools. Romney cannot echo those positions. Leaders in the Religious Right preach that the First Amendment separation of church and state is a "myth," and seek taxpayer support for church-related schools.
So in the end, Romney was reduced to bromides about religious liberty and "family values." (Mormons are good at "family values.")
Ironically, Romney missed the opportunity to make his best case for a Mormon to be president. Mormons believe that America's charter documents, the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, are actually divinely inspired. After seven years of an administration that views the Constitution as a nuisance, many Americans, I suspect, would welcome a president who sought to defend the integrity of the Constitution rather than subvert it.
Last week Jim was on The Tavis Smiley Show and talked about how the changing political landscape will affect the upcoming '08 election. Jim and Ken Blackwell, former Ohio secretary of state, debated and discussed both the impact of "value voters" on the election and what those values entail.
With James Dobson and major conservative evangelical leaders threatening to bolt the Republican Party if Rudy Giuliani is nominated for president, conventional wisdom about God and politics has been turned on its head. For the last 25 years, conservative evangelicals could reliably count on the Republicans to choose a candidate acceptable to their version of Christian politics. This year, however, the leading Republican candidates seem unable to articulate any convincing religious message, much less a strongly biblical perspective on issues. All the while, the three leading Democratic candidates can testify to personal faith, possess robust theological views, and ground many policies in broadly biblical principles.
In recent weeks, Rudy Giuliani has awkwardly quoted scripture ("let he who is without sin cast the first stone") to defend his personal record with adultery, multiple divorces, and family dissension. John McCain, an Episcopalian, said he was really a member of a Baptist church in Phoenix for the last 20 years—only to later confess that he had not been baptized in that tradition, thus excluding him from membership in the congregation. Fred Thompson rarely attends church. And, of course, Mitt Romney, a Mormon, appears to be serious and faithful about his religion—a religion long categorized as a "cult" by many evangelicals. While Sam Brownback and Mike Huckabee hold pristine evangelical credentials, neither appears able to move into the top tier of Republican candidates. Republicans are all over the theological map, with no clear direction.
Meanwhile, over in the Democratic camp, Hillary Clinton appears increasingly comfortable speaking of her faith, prayer life, and the Christian bases of policies such as health care, poverty, and the environment. A new book, God and Hillary Clinton: A Spiritual Life, written by Paul Kengor (although his conservative bias colors the analysis, he attempts to be fair) depicts Senator Clinton as a classical Methodist who takes the social vision of John Wesley seriously, and as a baby-boomer seeker whose life can be seen as a search for a meaning, wisdom, and social transformation. In 2005, Matt Bai of Time magazine suggested that Mrs. Clinton could lead an ethical revolution toward a "new Democratic moralism."
Senator Clinton is not alone among Democratic candidates. Barack Obama is an adult convert to the Christian faith with a sophisticated grasp of neo-orthodox theology and a commitment to African-American Christianity. John Edwards consistently bases his primary issues—poverty and peacemaking—in the biblical values from his Baptist faith. All three appear to be renewing the Christian tradition of the Social Gospel, developing new ways of interweaving vital faith with the need for political change. They are reminding a new generation of American voters that, in the words of theologian Walter Rauschenbusch, "God is the substance of all revolutions."
In this election, the leading Democratic presidential candidates are more conversant with scripture, Christian theology, and biblical ethics than the Republican candidates. (I, for one, would like to see a Bible drill between Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Giuliani!) The Democratic candidates' interpretation of faith points them toward different policies than the conservative evangelical politicians of decades past, but theirs are Christian perspectives and passions nonetheless.
Of course, evangelicals like James Dobson will never support Clinton, Obama, or Edwards no matter how richly theological their vision. But while religion should never be a test for political office, people of any faith should cheer that the Democratic Party now appears to understand that American pluralism and politics benefit from open, theologically serious, and spiritually grounded leadership. And we all benefit when more than one party contributes to the conversation between faith and public life.
Diana Butler Bass (www.dianabutlerbass.com) is the author of Christianity for the Rest of Us: How the Neighborhood Church is Transforming the Faith (Harper One) just issued in paperback this week.
On Sunday evening, Univision, the nation's largest Spanish-language network, aired what I believe is the first Spanish-language presidential candidates' debate. The University of Miami became the locale for this historic event that has many political implications. The courting of Latino voters is no surprise to many, as projections by the Pew Hispanic Center are that 10 percent of the U.S. electorate will be Hispanic in the 2008 election. Both Democrats and Republicans have made some efforts in the last decade to appeal to Latino/a voters. In 2004, 40 percent of Hispanics voted Republican. In the 2006 midterm elections, 30 percent of Hispanics voted Republican. In recent presidential history, both the Bill Clinton and George W. Bush administrations made concerted efforts to reach out to Latino voters.
Many polls and pundits seek to understand and measure the influence of the Hispanic vote in such swing states as New Mexico, Nevada, Colorado, and Ohio. While some people see a presidential debate that is translated into Spanish (the candidates all spoke in English) as an ominous, threatening act to "American culture," may I suggest a different interpretation? When candidates, be they Republican, Democrat, or Independent, choose to speak in a language other than English (Mandarin, Spanish, Korean, Italian, etc.) they are embracing a fundamental motto of U.S. self-understanding, namely, "e pluribus unum -- out of many, one."
The powerful vision behind democracy is that it allows for diversity while holding to unity. Still, it would be a critical mistake to understand unity as uniformity. Addressing the multiple concerns of U.S. Latinos (such as U.S. foreign policy in Latin America and the Caribbean, educational and housing challenges, immigration reform, and the men and women serving in Iraq and Afghanistan) means that one holds a fundamental appreciation for the principles of genuine democracy, namely, a plurality of voices. These concerns are not just Latino concerns; they have implications for the whole country. For me the question continues to be, how do we as a country continue to hear the concerns and promise of all no matter what language they speak?
Politics in Spanish is a model of what "democracy in America" (to borrow a phrase from Tocqueville) could be. Politics in Spanish/Korean/Italian/English, etc. (speaking metaphorically), may be a small step to moving beyond a national debate that demonizes the other into a civil discourse where people disagree respectfully. I learned something when services in my local congregation were translated from English to Spanish and Mandarin. You must allow time for people to hear, digest, and respond. Perhaps this small case study can help the country move beyond polarizing rhetoric that dehumanizes Republicans, Democrats, Independents, or nonvoters. Perhaps the practice of listening to others may allow us to be more civil to one another. We are at a great juncture in our political history where we can choose the road of civil discourse or go down the path of escalating, hurtful rhetoric. I believe our faith calls us to be prophetic and priestly simultaneously. May this be the model we leave for our children and the next generation. May my own words challenge me first.
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 board member for Sojourners/Call to Renewal.
An interesting and important development in the 2008 race for the White House: conservative evangelical hatchets are out in force, trying to cut down a prominent 2008 presidential hopeful. Hillary Clinton? Barack Obama? John Edwards? Wrong on all three counts.
Having already publicly attacked Republican candidate Rudy Giuliani in a remarkably candid editorial last month, Focus on the Family and Family Research Council have now unleashed their political machine against none other than Mitt Romney, working in tandem with some of Fred Thompson’s online organizers. It’s fair to interpret this as an early signal about where these groups are likely throw their political weight in the lead-up to Super Tuesday.
With onetime Republican presidential frontrunner Senator John McCain in meltdown, Mitt Romney suddenly finds himself under fire from some of the Christian right's most influential activists. Romney's evangelical critics claim the former Massachusetts governor and devout Mormon was complicit in the Marriott hotel chain's sale of pay-per-view porn on its in-room television sets when he served on the corporation's board of directors from 1992 to 2001. Two Christian-right operatives involved in orchestrating the charges have enlisted as Internet organizers for former Senator Fred Thompson, who is preparing to enter the race formally. The tactics of these religious-right players, targeted below the radar against Romney, are calculated to alter decisively the outcome of the Republican primary contest.
The assault was launched on July 5 with an opening shot in the form of a breathless press release issued through the mega-ministry Focus on the Family. In it, veteran antiporn crusader Phil Burress called Romney's failure to take action against pay-per-view hotel porn during his tenure on Marriott's board "extremely disturbing." That same day, a Focus on the Family spokesman took to the radio airwaves to ask whether Romney would "turn a blind eye" to pornography if elected president. Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, which functions as Focus's Washington lobbying arm, immediately joined the pile-on. He briefed the Associated Press on the record, explaining that Romney must "take some responsibility" for his supposed connection to Marriott's porn profiteering. The AP report on the accusation against Romney was subsequently reprinted in the pages of major outlets from The Boston Globe to The Washington Post. It only took a full six years after Romney resigned from Marriott's board for the Christian right's leading lights to profess their outrage—and only hours for the press to echo it.
Chris LaTondresse is the special assistant to the CEO at Sojourners/Call to Renewal.
I heard this report on NPR this morning while getting ready for work and was inspired. I'm not only encouraged that poverty is finally getting on the national agenda; I also found this particular report to be almost poetic. At our candidates forum on CNN, John Edwards made a commitment to keep poverty on the political agenda in this presidential election, and he is following through on his commitment.
From today's NPR segment by Dee Davis, who directs the Center for Rural Strategies in Whitesburg, Kentucky:
This week, presidential candidate John Edwards is coming to retrace the RFK visit. I wish they were all coming. These things matter. It is not about party; it's about eyeballs. And there are sights that need seeing. ...
People will tell you government doesn't work. But I've seen it work. It starts with somebody showing up and making an effort. I have also seen it fail. Mostly that happens when no one's paying attention.
Davis (who was a high school Republican when Bobby Kennedy came through Kentucky in 1968) is right—this isn't about party, it's about real people and places becoming part of our national political conversation.
As announced on CNN last week, we're hosting a forum of the leading Democratic presidential candidates at our Pentecost 2007 event. We invited several of our bloggers to discuss their questions for the candidates, but we've also compiled the best questions submitted by our readers', and now you can vote on the one we'll ask on live television:+ Click here to vote
The famous query of Martin Luther King, Jr., “Where do we go from here? Chaos or community?” is still a very pertinent question for today. In light of the noticeable disagreement around policies that seek to address economic, educational, and immigration reform, my queries to the presidential candidates would focus on that directional and strategic question, “Where do we go from here?” These queries underline and imply an initial stock-taking of where the candidates see the nation now and where do they see the necessary future trajectory we need to take as a nation. Below is a list of questions I submit for their examination:
Savage Inequalities
Some years ago, Jonathon Kozol wrote Savage Inequalities highlighting the severe disparities in educational spending in school districts around the country. What educational reform do you propose as necessary to close the disparities between economically stable public schools districts and those with serious economic challenges? What role, if any, do you see Affirmative Action playing in the area of education?
The rising cost of healthcare in the United States manifests a gap between the haves and the have-nots. What would you do as president to ameliorate the burden of healthcare for the working poor and the unemployed?
It is no secret that many undocumented immigrants are migrating to the United States, and parts of Europe because of poverty (not to mention war, genocide, and disease). What foreign and domestic policies would you advocate to address the glaring and growing economic and digital divide between many countries in the Global North and the Global South? How would these policies respond to the multitudes of men, women and children in Latin America, Africa, and Asia who are struggling for survival and coming into the U.S. undocumented?
Life and Quality of Life
Many people of faith, including me, underline the importance of honoring life and ensuring, as far as possible, a decent quality of life how do you respond to their concerns on these issues of life...
· Given the realities and complexities of economics, race, and gender in our country, should capital punishment still be a part of U.S. societies dealing with the most heinous of crimes?
· What foreign policy should the U.S. pursue in the cases of genocide as seen in Rwanda and Burundi?
· How would you address the concerns of many around the large number of abortions in the U.S.?
· What policies should be enacted to ensure healthcare, quality education, and housing of many children born to poor single parents?
· How can we ensure a better quality of life for the people working in the United States who can not earn enough for subsistence?
Civil Discourse
In the days following 9/11, the tone of national discourse was an inspirational note of civility and mutual respect. It appears that once again the hostility in discourse and divisiveness has returned, particularly around comprehensive immigration reform, same-sex unions, and the war in Iraq (among other issues) in many parts of the country. What model of discourse would your administration set that could serve as a healthy model for Republicans, Democrats, Independents, etc. all around the country? This is a critical query in light of the many examples of the demonization of "the other" that our children are hearing from all quarters of public life.
I pray that these questions (certainly there are many more of equal importance) would stimulate a necessary and healthy dialogue for people of faith, secularists, and all people of good-will around the U.S. that helps us underline what we really hold true and dear and how we treat each other.
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 board member for Sojourners/Call to Renewal.
We posted video of CNN's announcement of our presidential forum at Pentecost 2007 from this show earlier this week, but now we thank our friends at Faith in Public Life for posting video of the entire show, which included Rev. Albert Mohler, Jr. of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, David Kuo, former Deputy Director of the Bush Administration's Office of Faith-based and Community Initiatives, Rev. Barry Lynn, Executive Director, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, and David Gergen, former White House Adviser to Presidents Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Clinton.
It’s the week after Mother’s Day, and after being feted with handmade cards, sticky kisses, and a delicious meal I did not have to cook (or clean up after) I am back at work - surrounded by evidence that neither my city of Philadelphia nor my country are particularly hospitable places for us moms. Whether the news is about funding for the war, the dismal state of our local schools, the most recent homicide on our mean streets, or the “idols” being worshiped on TV, there are plenty of opportunities for a mom to become depressed about the world her children will inhabit. So it is with my mom hat on that I would like to propose three critical questions for the Democratic candidates that will speak at Pentecost 2007 next month.
1. Perhaps the single most important thing we can provide for all of our children are connections – connections to stable, loving families and communities, connections that last a lifetime, connections to parents, mentors, and teachers. Yet every night in our country, more than half a million children go to bed in a foster home, not knowing if they will sleep in the same bed tomorrow night, or attend the same school next week. Over a million children in America are homeless each year. Many more live at the fringes of our society, disconnected youth, living out their own personal terrors, and at times staving off their own loneliness and fear by creating terror on our streets and in our schools. Please describe your strategy for ensuring that all of our children can have the opportunity to grow up in safe, stable families and communities where they are securely connected to caring adults.
2. A good education is often seen as the great equalizer – a place where every child can feast at the great American opportunity table. And yet, we know that a child whose belly is rumbling with hunger, or who was awake all night hearing gunshots and sirens outside her window, or who attends a school with no textbooks cannot fully benefit from the American dream of a free and public education for all children. What is first thing you will do, if elected, to ensure that every child in America can have a fighting chance to succeed and achieve in school?
3. Like the mother of Seung-Hui Cho, I have a son with a mental illness. Like the mother of Emilio Gonzales, I have a son with severe disabilities requiring feeding tubes, multiple medications and round-the-clock care. Like Sherry Grace, I am the mother of an incarcerated son who struggled with drugs and addiction. What hope do you offer to mothers, like us, who live with children in pain, children struggling to cope with physical, mental, and emotional challenges every day? We go into our communities seeking help for our children and doors are closed in our faces – for lack of insurance, lack of access, lack of public will. When our children struggle, act-out, or “fail,” we are often vilified and blamed, rarely supported and helped. How will you ensure that all of our nation’s children have access to the health care, mental health services, dental care and other supports they need to grow up strong and healthy?
"If any of you put a stumbling block before one of these little ones who believe in me, it would be better for you if a great millstone were hung around your neck and you were thrown into the sea. " (Mark 9:42)
Susan H. Badeau is the Executive Director of the Philadelphia Children's Commission, a parent of 22 children by birth, foster care, and adoption, a life-long advocate and a Sojourners/Philadelphia volunteer. This article was part of the inspiration for this post.
As Jim Wallis announced last week, we're pleased to be hosting a forum of the leading Democratic presidential candidates at our Pentecost 2007 conference (and hoping to do a Republican candidates forum later this year). We've invited several of our bloggers to discuss their questions for the candidates, but we're also asking our readers to submit their questions, and will let YOU vote on the ones we should use! + Click here to submit your questions
Since in one way or another they all reference some level of spiritual interest, if not outright commitment, the obvious question would be, "In what ways does your faith influence your political opinions, agenda, and rhetoric?"
But since every candidate has an a priori answer carefully crafted for this exact question, which would certainly fall within the parameters of what each candidate’s staff deems an appropriately elusive and/or encompassing response, and since they all espouse a Christian faith, I would rather ask them:
How do you determine which imperatives and examples of both the Old and New Testaments will proactively shape your political and personal convictions? What are the criteria you use that gives some teaching, instruction, or narrative more clout than another?
Can an American politician publicly argue for the inherent worth of a fetus, referencing Psalm 139, and at the same time believe that women should be given the opportunity to terminate a pregnancy?
Assuming that no pacifist would, or even could, become president of the United States, when is there a right time to use force to stop violence, or injustice, or evil? Without turning the question into an indictment of how the current administration failed, what is your criteria for making the choice to use military force?
Under what conditions is the free enterprise system and basic market economics "fair?" And, at the same time, when does too much assistance promote a disempowering effect?
What is the best way to grant people a sense of worth and power?
Obviously, if we get the same shot at the Republicans, the questions would be slightly different!
Chap Clark is president of ParenTeen, a senior editor for Youthworker Journal, a professor of youth, family, and culture at Fuller Theological Seminary, and a Red Letter Christian.
As Jim Wallis announced last week, we're pleased to be hosting a forum of the leading Democratic presidential candidates at our Pentecost 2007 conference (and hoping to do a Republican candidates forum later this year). We've invited several of our bloggers to discuss their questions for the candidates, but are also asking our readers to submit their questions, and will let YOU vote on the ones we should use! + Click here to submit your questions
I'm writing from the Republic of South Africa, where I've been speaking in conferences and other gatherings with church leaders from across many denominations. With the memories of apartheid still alive here, with a poverty rate of about 40 percent, with crime rates moving higher and higher - in part due to desperate immigrants from Zimbabwe - and with the continuing work of creating a successful multicultural democracy ongoing, several questions come to my mind for the three candidates. Here is how I would formulate them sitting in a home in downtown Johannesburg:
1. For Senator Clinton: If you are elected and serve two terms, it would mean that two families would share the presidency of the United States for 28 years. It's hard not to conclude that we are living in something more like an oligarchy or plutocracy than a democracy. Would you reflect on this problem so we can see how deeply you have thought about it, and would you propose what can be done about it?
2. For Senator Obama: I've heard critics express fear that you aren't tough enough or militaristic enough to be president in a world of terrorism and nuclear weapons. I would imagine that would prompt you to want to prove you are indeed capable of being tough and militaristic. But many of us are hoping for someone who will present another vision for the role of America in the world - something beyond the world's dominant military force, the world's police, or the world's imperial center. Not that America would be weak, but that we would be strong in new and different ways. Can you comment on your vision for the role of America in the world, and what you would do to pursue that role?
3. For John Edwards: When the subject of terrorism comes up, many Americans seem to think that terrorism can be stopped by guns and bombs. But others believe that wherever there is a large gap between rich and poor countries, terrorism (like high crime rates) will be likely, perhaps inevitable. If that is the case, creating a more equitable global economy becomes one of the most essential dimensions of reducing terrorism. Do you agree, and if so, what can America do to increase its security by helping poor nations improve their economic systems?
There are two additional questions I would want to ask all the candidates:
1. America seems to be caught in a cycle of fear. Politicians use fear to garner support and inhibit criticism. News media profit when people are afraid and watch TV news more often, raising ratings and advertising income. The arms industry profits when fears run high. Political parties compete for fear dominance over other parties. Cycles of fear are hard to break. How will your campaign and your presidency address this rise in the fear quotient?
2. The United States is not leading the world in addressing our unsustainable economy. We are the world's prime example of an unsustainable consumer society, and if our lifestyles were generalized to the whole human population, we would need many planet earths to sustain us. Should we be a leader in environmental stewardship and sustainability? How would you lead in this regard? What would your priorities be in environmental renewal and sustainable living?
Brian McLaren (brianmclaren.net) is an author, speaker, Red Letter Christian, and serves as board chair for Sojourners/Call to Renewal. His next book, due out in October, will be called Everything Must Change: Jesus, Global Crises, and a Revolution of Hope.
In the 2004 presidential campaign, solutions to the persistent poverty in our country and around the world were almost never discussed. But this year, we have a chance to change that. On Monday, June 4, the leading Democratic presidential contenders – Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, and Barack Obama – will join us at Pentecost 2007: Taking the Vision to the Streets for the first-ever presidential candidates forum to focus exclusively on faith, values, and poverty.
I want your input about what questions we should ask the candidates. What concerns do you have about the future of our nation, and the least of these in our midst? How has poverty touched your family or your community? How will your faith impact how you vote in 2008?
This is our opportunity to raise these questions in the presidential campaign, first with Democratic candidates and later this year with the Republicans. We will issue a prophetic challenge to put poverty near the top of the political agenda, asking the candidates to present the nation with their plans for dramatic poverty reduction both at home and globally.
Before I decide how to vote in 2008, I want to know what the candidates plan to do for 13 million children living in poverty, 47 million Americans with no health insurance, and 3 billion people around the world who live on under $2 a day. Behind those numbers are human faces and moral tragedies – stories of working families desperately trying to make ends meet, immigrant families being torn apart, and children all over the world going to bed hungry.
I want presidential candidates to hear those stories and commit to making a difference in the lives of poor people in the United States and around the globe. And I want to know how they’re going to pay for it, given a ballooning military budget and a disastrous war in Iraq with no end in sight.If you have a question you’d like to ask the candidates, please click here to share it with us . We’ll be asking our online supporters to vote for their favorite questions before the forum, and asking the winning questions live at Pentecost 2007.
I’m looking forward to hearing your questions – and their answers.
Time's Joe Klein makes some interesting observations about Arkansas Governor and Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee ("a political inconvenience, a destroyer of stereotypes"), asking whether or not "compassionate conservatism" is dead, and if poverty has a place on the Republican agenda:
In 2000, George W. Bush successfully used "compassionate conservatism" to soften his image with independents and some conservative Democrats. But it didn't go over so well with many Republicans: I remember Bush putting more than a few country-club-conservative audiences to sleep with his long disquisitions about "armies of compassion," only rousing the faithful when he talked about tax cuts. (Huckabee plays this card too: he claims to be the only Governor of Arkansas to cut taxes in the past 160 years.) Bush sustained his candidacy, despite all the soft talk, because he was the eldest son of royalty in the party of primogeniture. Neither Huckabee nor Brownback has that luxury, and both are languishing in the polls. Is it because it's early and they're not well known? Or is it just too much talk of Darfur - Brownback's cause - and food banks? Several weeks ago, I watched Huckabee lose an audience at the National Review's Conservative Summit with his talk of feeding the hungry and health care. "I think he's in the wrong party," a gentleman from Pennsylvania told me.
Bob Francis is the Organizing and Policy Assistant for Sojourners/Call to Renewal.
I want to personally invite you to Washington, D.C., on June 3-6 to participate in Pentecost 2007: Taking the Vision to the Streets. I'm asking you to come because this is not just another conference: This will be an important step in a campaign aimed at the critical presidential election year of 2008. What is the plan? We hope to do nothing less than put poverty on the national agenda, and challenge candidates from both parties to present the nation with their plans for dramatic poverty reduction both at home and globally. I believe we can really make a difference, but only if we are all in it together.
Last year, we launched "From Poverty to Opportunity: A Covenant for a New America," a powerful tool for breaking the liberal-conservative paralysis on poverty, transcending the frozen ideological debate that traps the poor between false alternatives, calling the nation to a results-based program, and moving us all to higher ground. This year, we will take the Covenant to a new level by calling on our national leaders to put poverty near the top of the political agenda.
Taking the Vision to the Streets begins with a Sunday night revival, where I will share the preaching with Rev. Sam Rodriguez, president of the National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference, and Rev. Freddie Haynes, senior pastor of Friendship-West Baptist Church in Dallas, Texas. We will also have inspiring gospel music to lift our souls for the work ahead.
A panel of church leaders and activists, including Brian McLaren, Sam Rodriquez, Rich Nathan, and Shane Claiborne will lead a discussion on “How to Put Poverty on the Agenda of your Local Church.” Marshall Ganz will lead an organizing institute to give you practical skills for putting poverty on the agenda.
We’ll be giving our 6th annual Amos and Joseph Awards. This year’s “Amos,” a person who faithfully uses a position of influence to benefit those in poverty, is Gary Haugen, president of International Justice Mission, a human rights agency that rescues victims of violence, sexual exploitation, slavery, and oppression. Our “Joseph,” a person who comes from a humble background to serve God and community, is Rev. Romal Tune, president of Clergy Strategic Alliances, which works to equip pastors and congregations with the skills necessary to build power and improve their communities.
And, in its fourth year now, our Emerging Leaders program (for faith-inspired activists younger than 30) may be one of the most exciting offerings of the conference. This includes a special evening with Christa Mazzone. Here, young leaders have the opportunity to establish relationships that could last a lifetime as we all seek to build a new movement.
We are also finishing the details on our presidential candidates forum on faith, values, and poverty. I’ll have an exciting announcement tomorrow about who will be joining us; you don’t want to miss it.
As a participant, you will join workshops and seminars offering very practical training in how to use the Covenant, develop organizing skills, learn how to do effective media work, round out your knowledge of the issues, deepen your understanding of "prophetic advocacy," and network with other faith-based advocates, especially from your region.
Pentecost 2007 is the next step in a campaign that will last through the 2008 election year season and beyond - don't miss this important event.
Vote with your feet. Take the vision to the streets. Show up to make a difference. Tell the media, by your presence, that the faith community cares about our neighbors in poverty. Tell your political representatives the kind of leadership that you expect from them - we'll set up the appointments for you. And there will be a Capitol Hill reception, like last year, at which both Democratic and Republican leaders will speak.
So do come. And bring some friends. Send this invitation to others. Bring a delegation from your community, church, or school. Drive if you live a day's drive away or less, or make your plane reservations today.
We need you to sign up right away: Make a statement about your faith and its implications. Washington needs to hear from you, and we need your help and support. See you soon! And stay tuned for the exciting announcement tomorrow on our presidential forum.
I still have another month on self-imposed blogging hiatus so that I can finish my book. But I couldn't let this pass without comment.
Rod Dreher quotes Stuart Rothenberg, who shoots down the idea that Democrats can pick up votes from evangelicals by claiming that "the numbers suggest that Democratic opportunities among evangelicals are very limited."
In fact, the numbers suggest no such thing. The only numbers Rothenberg cites are the meager gains Democrats made nationally among evangelicals in November 2006. But no one - and certainly not the Democratic religion consultants he criticizes in the piece - has claimed that Democrats made great strides among evangelicals nationally last year. Indeed, it would be surprising if they had, given that the party made virtually no special effort to court evangelical voters.
What Democrats like Mara Vanderslice and Eric Sapp (and, to be fair, me) have said is that in the states where Democrats spent a year or two establishing relationships with evangelical leaders and voters, candidates did make significant gains. In Michigan and Ohio, for instance, the Democratic gubernatorial candidates nearly split the evangelical vote. And, contrary to Rothenberg's assertion that evangelicals won't vote Democratic because they vote based on issues (which he defines narrowly as gay marriage and abortion), those winning Democratic candidates were pro-choice and pro-gay rights.
Nowhere in the rest of the piece does Rothenberg cite actual numbers to make his point. He counters evidence Sapp and Vanderslice gathered based on meetings with hundreds of evangelical leaders by simply asserting: "If you know anything about evangelicals, you know this is simply wrong."
Well, Vanderslice and Sapp may not be pollsters, but they are evangelicals, so they know a thing or two about the community. And they know that while a majority of evangelicals may decide to stick with the GOP in the hopes of changing the party from the inside, it's more than possible for Democrats to pick up enough evangelical voters to put them over the top. Republicans did the same thing courting socially conservative African-American voters in 2004. It works where Democrats have tried it. So why on earth would you hold up cases in which Democrats haven't tried it as proof that it can't work?
Amy Sullivan is a Red Letter Christian and a contributing editor for The Washington Monthly.
Copyright (c) 2006 Beliefnet, Inc. All rights reserved.
Use of this site is subject to Terms
of Service and to our
Privacy Policy.
Constructed by Beliefnet.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Brian McLaren is an author and speaker and serves as Sojourners' board chair. 
Shane Claiborne is the author of 
As a former North Carolinian, I have very mixed feelings regarding the death of Senator Jesse Helms. When my late grandfather Roy B. Clogston was the athletic director of NC State from 1948-69, he became good friends with Helms. At that time, Helms was the general manager of WRAL-TV in Raleigh, and they worked on the contracts to televise NC State basketball games. So, he remembered Helms fondly and often contributed to his campaign. While I never met Helms, I learned from my grandfather that even Helms possessed a soft side. 
Becky Garrison will be featured in the upcoming documentary 
Phyllis Tickle (
Soccer moms, NASCAR dads, and now holy hipsters have been touted by political pundits and the mainstream media as the group du jour that political candidates must court in order to win the coveted presidential prize. Using select books and blogs, they conclude that these missional millennials have abandoned the political party of their parents and will be casting their ballots for Obama come November. However, as 
will appear in the August 2008 issue of 
Diana Butler Bass holds a doctorate in American religion from Duke University. She is the author of six books, including 
Over the weekend, James Dobson backed off 
Marcia Ford, author of 
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. His book Becoming King: Martin Luther King, Jr. and the Making of a National Leader (The University Press of Kentucky, 2008) will be available in the fall. Troy is a participant in Sojourners' "Windchangers" grassroots organizing pilot project in Ohio to work on the Vote Out Poverty Campaign.
Tuesday evening, John McCain clinched the Republican nomination for president, and Mike Huckabee, the last remaining contender, conceded defeat. Huckabee's campaign, and the failure of the Religious Right to support him, has been one of the most interesting and puzzling stories of this primary season 
Emergents seek a theological rationale for their political engagement. The thing is, that rationale varies from issue to issue, which makes the emergents an infuriatingly moving target for those with more traditional political viewpoints. For instance, the Christian speaker Len Sweet, a longtime friend of Emergent, recently spoke out against the movement in Relevant magazine, saying:
Tony Jones is the national coordinator of 
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.
In the 2008 election, "change" has emerged as the new catch-all buzzword. I reported on the God's Politics blog a few of the 
Without question the 2008 election is a historic time. Much has been said about the momentous nature of this presidential election. A woman, an African American, and a Latino were all trying to make history, albeit on one side of the political aisle. This moment in U.S. history should not be understated. As a Latino evangelical leader, I've been watching this election closely. It's an excellent time to talk about national voting in terms of a kaleidoscope. As a man who grew up in poor urban neighborhood in New Jersey and today pastors a multiethnic congregation in New York, I recognize the fragile nature of these conversations. Despite the complexity of this conversation, this election is an opportune moment to engage this much needed dialogue. The mixed legacy of race relations in the U.S. demands a broader conversation. In the 21st century, where many watch television in high-definition, national politics must be done in technicolor.
This afternoon's top news is Mitt Romney's announcement that he is ending his run for the presidency. Romney's candidacy raised the issue of whether a Mormon could be elected president. The media stories were about evangelicals who didn't like him because they thought Mormonism was an un-Christian sect. 
Mary Nelson is president emeritus of 
John Edwards ended his campaign this afternoon at the same place he started it and with the same theme—ending poverty as a moral imperative. In the Ninth Ward of New Orleans, Edwards said that he was stepping aside in this presidential campaign, but that he would now continue his life-long work for economic justice. Before announcing his decision, he called both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton to ask for a pledge to make ending poverty central to their campaigns for president and to their presidencies if they are elected.
Obery M. Hendricks, Jr., Ph.D. is a professor of biblical interpretation at New York Theological Seminary, the author of 
Tim Burton's striking and gruesome film adaptation of Stephen Sondheim's musical 'Sweeney Todd' made me feel alternately impressed by Johnny Depp's singing talent and wince at the violence. The story of a 19th century barber who avenges the loss of his wife and daughter by providing the closest shave ever to a litany of customers including the judge who caused his pain left me preoccupied by thoughts closer to home. 
Gareth Higgins is a Christian writer and activist in Belfast, Northern Ireland. For the past decade he was the founder/director of the zero28 project, an initiative addressing questions of peace, justice, and culture. He is the author of the insightful 
In what may be the defining moment of his campaign, Mitt Romney, the former governor of Massachusetts and a Mormon, addressed the issue of faith and its bearing on his pursuit of the presidency. Pundits inevitably compared Romney's speech in College Station, Texas, with the speech that John F. Kennedy gave just down the road at the Rice Hotel, Houston, on September 12, 1960.
Randall Balmer, an Episcopal priest, is professor of American religious history at Barnard College, Columbia University, and a visiting professor at Yale Divinity School. His most recent book, 
Last week Jim was on The Tavis Smiley Show and talked about how the changing political landscape will affect the upcoming '08 election. Jim and Ken Blackwell, former Ohio secretary of state, debated and discussed both the impact of "value voters" on the election and what those values entail. 
With James Dobson and major conservative evangelical leaders threatening to bolt the Republican Party if Rudy Giuliani is nominated for president, conventional wisdom about God and politics has been turned on its head. For the last 25 years, conservative evangelicals could reliably count on the Republicans to choose a candidate acceptable to their version of Christian politics. This year, however, the leading Republican candidates seem unable to articulate any convincing religious message, much less a strongly biblical perspective on issues. All the while, the three leading Democratic candidates can testify to personal faith, possess robust theological views, and ground many policies in broadly biblical principles.
Diana Butler Bass (
On Sunday evening, Univision, the nation's largest Spanish-language network, aired what I believe is the first Spanish-language presidential candidates' debate. The University of Miami became the locale for this historic event that has many political implications. The courting of Latino voters is no surprise to many, as projections by the Pew Hispanic Center are that 10 percent of the U.S. electorate will be Hispanic in the 2008 election. Both Democrats and Republicans have made some efforts in the last decade to appeal to Latino/a voters. In 2004, 40 percent of Hispanics voted Republican. In the 2006 midterm elections, 30 percent of Hispanics voted Republican. In recent presidential history, both the Bill Clinton and George W. Bush administrations made concerted efforts to reach out to Latino voters.
It’s the week after Mother’s Day, and after being feted with handmade cards, sticky kisses, and a delicious meal I did not have to cook (or clean up after) I am back at work - surrounded by evidence that neither my city of Philadelphia nor my country are particularly hospitable places for us moms. Whether the news is about funding for the war, the dismal state of our local schools, the most recent homicide on our mean streets, or the “idols” being worshiped on TV, there are plenty of opportunities for a mom to become depressed about the world her children will inhabit. So it is with my mom hat on that I would like to propose three critical questions for the Democratic candidates that will speak at Pentecost 2007 next month.
Chap Clark is president of 
I want to personally invite you to Washington, D.C., on June 3-6 to participate in 
