NORTON META TAG

Showing posts with label jim wallis. Show all posts
Showing posts with label jim wallis. Show all posts

01 January 2016

CELEBRATING THE REASON FOR THE SEASON OR JUST CHRISTMAS? & Parables For Understanding A Nation's Racial 'Sin' 11OKT15

 We must talk about poverty..:
We just finished celebrating Christmas 2015, but we should ask ourselves why? AMERICAN POVERTY, there is no Christian justification for the number of people living in poverty in the U.S., no Christian justification for the severity of the poverty they are living in. As we celebrate the gift of God's only Son, Jesus, this Christmas season, we would do well to consider the teachings of Jesus Christ about faith, salvation, social justice, the poor, and greed. Real, honest contemplation of Christ's principle teachings on Christianity with real, honest comparisons of the 2016 presidential candidates campaigns and speeches should make it very clear who in the race is actually concerned about and has proposals to deal with American poverty and who is controlled by, owned by and will continue to serve the rich and powerful, corporate America, the 1%. Below is an interview of JimWallis of +Sojourners from +NPR addressing the problems of poverty and racial discord in the U.S. +Senator Bernie Sanders , Democratic candidate for president in the 2016 presidential election, is the only candidate who consistently mentions the poor, working class and middle class in his campaigning and blast the deceptive manipulation of the economic uncertainty of the 99% by the republican party presidential candidates. Check out the interview with Jim Wallis and go to Bernie 2016 for information on his plans to alleviate American poverty. There is a link to the +The Circle of Protection site with the videos and transcripts of Democratic and republican 2016 presidential candidates positions on American poverty at the end of this post. You decide who expresses the most Christian views on poverty.

Rev. Jim Wallis leads the Christian social justice group Sojourners. He is known for merging faith with public life, urging candidates for office to discuss moral issues in a way that transcends ideological divisions. Michel Martin talks with Wallis about his book America's Original Sin: Racism, White Privilege and the Bridge to a New America.
MICHEL MARTIN, HOST:
If you're interested in the nexus of faith and politics, then the Reverend Jim Wallis is a name you probably know. He leads a Christian social justice organization called Sojourners. But he was also one of the people behind the 2008 Compassion Forum that aimed to press candidates to discuss moral issues in a way that transcended ideological divisions. He's also the author of a number of books, and his latest forthcoming work is called "America's Original Sin: Racism, White Privilege And The Bridge To A New America." And the Reverend Jim Wallis is with us now. Reverend Wallis, thanks so much for being here.
REVEREND JIM WALLIS: Great to see you again.
MARTIN: So first, to the book - I mean, you've written many, many books. This is - what? - number 12, I think. Why this topic now?
WALLIS: When Trayvon Martin was shot and killed, I felt - you might call it the lament of a white father. I knew and the whole country knew that my son Luke - six-foot-tall baseball athlete, going to college next year - had been walking and doing the same thing, same time that Trayvon was doing in Sanford, Fla., everyone knows he would've come back. But Trayvon didn't come back, and so it was a parable. Jesus talked about parables. They teach us things. Michael Brown - Ferguson - was a parable. Charleston was a parable. The parable about where we are as a nation - we have to see our original sin and how it still lingers in our criminal justice system.
MARTIN: And what is the original sin?
WALLIS: Well, the original sin is - I have this sentence in the book - the most controversial sentence I ever wrote - this nation was founded by the near genocide of one people and the kidnapping of another people to build this nation. So slavery and the indigenous destruction of those who were here - that was our original sin. And it still lingers in our criminal justice system - in most of our systems.
And so the book talks about how to go deeply into that to understand what's happening here and then to see how these events - these shootings of young black men and women losing their lives in custody - are parables. They have to teach us what repentance doesn't mean just saying you're sorry. Or feeling guilty means turning and going in a whole different direction.
And so I'm writing this as a white man, and I'm saying that in this society, no matter where I live or what I do or who my friends are or even if I try to work to overcome racial and criminal injustice, I can never escape white privilege in this society - just like my friends, my colleagues can't escape what it means to be black or brown in this country. And if we are people of faith - I say in the book if white Christians were more Christian than white, black parents would have less to fear for their children.
MARTIN: In fact, the book itself seems to be rather explicitly aimed towards the white Christian reader. Am I right about that?
WALLIS: You are because I was stunned by how the responses to the shootings of young black men just really fall along racial lines. So many white people would say, well, it's the incident. It's the circumstance. It's what he or she did or didn't do. And for black people, this is a pattern, structure, experience. I'm a Little League baseball coach, and all my black kids on the team - their parents have the talk - how to behave, how not to behave, what to do, not to do if there's a man - a cop or a man with a gun. And none of the white parents have that talk. None of the white parents even know the talk happens.
MARTIN: I referenced earlier the Compassion Forum, which was a forum at Messiah College in 2008 where a candidates - Senator - then-Senator Barack Obama - then-Senator Hillary Clinton was invited to participate. Senator John McCain was invited to participate. He ended up not participating, but he did participate in a conversation later on in the year with the Reverend Rick Warren.
But I was noting that among the people endorsing the idea of the Compassion Forum at the time were Governor Mike Huckabee, who's now another candidate for president, Rick Santorum, former United States senator - both evangelicals. You belong to the evangelical tradition, as well. Why is it that, you know, their priority seems very different, as people who are running for office and for whom their faith is also important? Why is it that you think that, you know, you're all evangelicals, and you belong to this tradition, and yet you see the priority very differently?
WALLIS: Look at - we had our political conversation changed just here in town by Pope Francis. I have never seen the gospel - the gospel values - proclaimed at the highest levels of power in this country. I was at the White House welcoming ceremony in the Congress, and here is the Pope saying how we treat the marginal - those are on the outside, left behind - is a faith issue, is a gospel issue.
In between his eloquent proclamations, he went and spent time with those very people - lunched with the homeless in D.C., with prisoners in Philadelphia - living the gospel and not just proclaiming it. And that said very clearly, if you want to apply gospel values to politics, you got to deal with those who are marginal, vulnerable, left outside. That's all over the Bible.
MARTIN: Do you see any opportunity for the two sides to coalesce around some things that you might all care about - those of you who both proclaim this faith, but whose priorities seem to be somewhat different at this point?
WALLIS: Well, we had this big coalition called the Circle of Protection put together to in all these debates about budgets and spending - to protect low-income people. We've been doing this for a number of years. We asked all the candidates to submit a three minute video on how they would approach property, how they'd treat the poor, how they would deal with this issue, globally and domestically. We've got 10 videos in so far, and this is going to put, we think, poverty on the agenda. Republicans and Democrats have to answer the same question, and they're saying different things. And that's a good debate to have, but you've got to say, unless we are committed, as a fundamental priority, to lift people out of poverty, help them lift themselves out of poverty, how are you going to do that? And let's have a debate about that.
MARTIN: The first Democratic debate of the season is scheduled for Tuesday. What are you hoping to hear?
WALLIS: Well, you know, I was up on the Hill two days after the Pope was here. We met with leaders in both parties, and the whole purpose was - in light of what the Pope said, what are you going to do now about the issues facing low income people this file in the Congress? And, you know, the truth is Democrats haven't talked as much about the poor as the Pope did when he was in the Congress. And Republicans are just beginning to talk about poverty as a concern. We're saying what does that mean? What does that mean?
So what I hope is CNN asks the kinds of questions that Pope Francis said are central to what it means to seek and serve the common good. But I care less about what a candidate says about how devout they are, how often they pray, how deep their faith is. I want to know what it means - what it means for their leadership and for their policies. And if the poor, the earth and strangers, immigrants aren't there, prisoners aren't there, then I don't hear the gospel in what they're saying.
MARTIN: Jim Wallis is president and founder of Sojourners. He's also editor-in-chief of Sojourners magazine. He's the author of many books. His latest forthcoming book is "America's Original Sin: Racism, White Privilege And The Bridge To A New America." And he spoke with us in Washington, D.C. Reverend Wallis, thanks so much for speaking with us.
WALLIS: Blessing to be here.
Copyright © 2015 NPR. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use and permissions pages at www.npr.org for further information.
NPR transcripts are created on a rush deadline by a contractor for NPR, and accuracy and availability may vary. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Please be aware that the authoritative record of NPR’s programming is the audio.
Circle of Protection

Candidate Videos

Over 100 Christian leaders have asked each presidential candidate, “What would you do as president to offer help and opportunity to hungry and poor people in the United States and around the world?” These videos, produced by the campaigns, are their response. The Circle of Protection presents them without comment or endorsement. We encourage church, college and seminary groups to view and discuss the videos. A study guide is available.
  

01 November 2012

Religious Consistency and Hypocrisy: Election 2012 & od's Politics Blog Tony Campolo and Shane Claiborne: A Conversation About Politics 1NOV&29OKT12

JIM WALLIS is spot on in this commentary on religion and politics and the 2012 US elections. This from Sojourners, followed by a fascinating excerpt from Red Letter Christians by Tony Campolo and Shane Claiborne...

Most people in America, whether they are religious or not, prefer consistency in the faith community to hypocrisy. One of the reasons the fastest growing demographic in religious affiliation surveys is now “none of the above” is that too many people see more religious hypocrisy than consistency.
Religion is not, at its core, politically partisan. But too often religion becomes a political tool; we see that on both sides of the aisle. That does not mean people of faith shouldn’t have strong convictions or feelings about political issues or shouldn’t vote one way or another; or that there is a moral equivalency between the political parties and it doesn’t matter which way we vote. Elections are important, and people of faith should be voting as citizens and by their most basic values.
But let’s be clear: On Nov. 6, neither a Republican nor Democratic victory will bring in the kingdom of God. 
Elections can sometimes, however, set a framework for what can or can’t be done for the things we believe in. And there are important differences between the candidates at every level up and down the ballots we will cast next week. But people of faith — and their leaders — should be more prophetic than partisan during election seasons. And the moral issues we care about should be more important to us than the candidates or the parties they represent.
In this election, I’ve heard a lot of talk about “biblical principles” or the importance of voting according to a “Christian worldview.” Unfortunately, those words are normally followed by talking points that sound a lot more like a party platform than words you could imagine Jesus speaking. The Sermon on the Mount, when read next to campaign speeches, reads as almost a direct refutation of everything politics values in our world today. Matthew 25 sounds like an example of what NOT to say if you want to run for elected office.
With more than 2,000 verses in the Bible about poverty — and with freeing the poor and oppressed as central components of the gospel's “good news" — shouldn’t we consider how the election will affect the poor and oppressed? Or ask how we should treat the millions of undocumented immigrants among us, who clearly fit the biblical category of “the stranger?” In both cases, how we treat “the least of these,” Jesus says in the 25th chapter of Matthew, is how we treat him. Doesn’t our voting have something to do with that? Many of us Christians are “pro-life,” but aren’t the nearly 20,000 children around the world who die every day of utterly preventable hunger and disease just as much a “sanctity-of-life” issue as the approximately 3,000 abortions that occurred in our country today?
A very prominent conservative Catholic lamented to me last week how his side mostly cares about children before they are born and the liberals care more about kids afterward. Where is the consistency here? And does the Bible only talk about sex and marriage, or also about social justice?
Then there is the care of God’s creation, or the resolution of the world’s inevitable conflicts without the horrible failures and human costs of our endless wars. Aren’t Christians supposed to be peacemakers? We were reminded this week of the stark reality that while God created the physical world to be good, it is also dangerous. And our failure to be good stewards of that which God made is resulting in the increasing severity of storms and devastating changes in other weather patterns.
Don’t all those issues involve biblical values too?
It has been sad to see some prominent conservative evangelical leaders say that the biblical principles  in this election really only concern abortion and gay marriage, and all other issues are negotiable. Such election-year pronouncements sound more like an attempt to baptize a political party than to think critically from a moral tradition.
Our votes in elections are always about making imperfect choices, and no one’s eternal salvation is on the line by the decisions they make in the voting booth.
I have been clear from the start of the Republican primary campaign that Mitt Romney’s Mormonism should not be a factor in this election. A candidate’s theology and religious doctrines should not be an issue. But his or her moral compass should be, and so should how their religious and moral convictions affect their policy decisions. The Mormonism of Republican Mitt Romney and Democratic Majority Leader Harry Reid should not disqualify them for public office. To many, their faithful adherence to their religious tradition is a positive.
But neither the National Council of Churches nor the National Association of Evangelicals, the World Council of Churches nor the World Evangelical Alliance have ever been willing to accept the Mormon Church into the traditional body of Christian churches. So why did some conservative religious leaders suddenly seem to change their own position on Mormonism once Romney won the Republican nomination, and scrubbed articles from their websites that described Mormonism as an unbiblical “cult?” Would they have made those theological shifts about another person's religion if that person was a Democrat? Are our concerns really about religion and biblical values, or do they just reflect our ideological political preferences?
Christians can and will be voting in different ways in this election in response to different prudential judgments about how to best express their biblical values. But please, let us stop suggesting that "biblical values" only involve certain issues or can only be interpreted in one partisan way or another.
This is not a one-way street. Those who are politically progressive need to ask themselves: have I been consistent with the values that I profess? On war — specifically the use of drones? Poverty? The environment? Do I make excuses for my candidate on the issues I care about just because I voted for him or her?
It’s important to have a dose of humility and recognize that we all have the capacity to be inconsistent. But let’s not use that as an excuse to remain that way. Let people see our religious consistency on the issues, not our political hypocrisy at election time, by assigning ultimate biblical values to our different political choices.
Jim Wallis is the author of Rediscovering Values: A Guide for Economic and Moral Recovery, and CEO of Sojourners. His forthcoming book, On God's Side: What Religion Forgets and Politics Hasn’t Learned about Serving the Common Good, is set to release in early 2013. Follow Jim on Twitter @JimWallis.

Tony Campolo and Shane Claiborne: A Conversation About Politics

Shane Claiborne and Tony Campolo. Photo courtesy of the authors.
Shane Claiborne and Tony Campolo. Photo courtesy of the authors.
TONY CAMPOLO: Shane, I have a question to ask that may make you squirm a little bit. From hearing you talk and reading your books, you often seem to suggest that Christians not participate in the political process, and that political activism is somewhat futile. Have I understood your position correctly?
SHANE CLAIBORNE: The question for me is not are we political, but how are we political? We need to be politically engaged, but peculiar in how we engage. Jesus and the early Christians had a marvelous political imagination. They turned all the presumptions and ideas of power and blessing upside down.
To be nonpartisan doesn’t mean we’re nonpolitical. —Shane Claiborne
The early Christians felt a deep collision with the empire in which they lived, and with politics as usual. They carelessly crossed party lines and built subversive friendships. And we should do that too. To be nonpartisan doesn’t mean we’re nonpolitical. We should refuse to get sucked into political camps and insist on pulling the best out of all of them. That’s what Jesus did—challenge the worst of each camp and pull out the best of each. That’s why we see Essenes, Zealots, Herodians, Pharisees, and Sadducees all following Jesus and even joining his movement. But they had to become new creations. They had to let go of some things. Jesus challenged the tax-collecting system of Rome and the sword of the Zealots.
So to answer the question, I engage with local politics because it affects people I love. And I engage in national politics because it affects people I love.
Governments can do lots of things, but there are a lot of things they cannot do. A government can pass good laws, but no law can change a human heart. Only God can do that. A government can provide good housing, but folks can have a house without having a home. We can keep people breathing with good health care, but they still may not really be alive. The work of community, love, reconciliation, restoration is the work we cannot leave up to politicians. This is the work we are all called to do. We can’t wait on politicians to change the world. We can’t wait on governments to legislate love. And we don’t let policies define how we treat people; how we treat people shapes our policies.
TONY CAMPOLO: So you are not calling for noninvolvement in politics. Instead, you are warning Christians not to put their trust totally in political powers. You are calling them to exercise an ongoing involvement with the political process, to constantly speak truth to power in those places where power seems to be asserting itself in ways that are contrary to the will of God.
SHANE CLAIBORNE: Our goal is to seek first the kingdom of God. What would it look like if Jesus were in charge of my block, of our city, of our country, our world? That’s what we get to imagine when we dream dreams of the kingdom on earth. And we get some pretty good glimpses of what that looks like from the Gospels: the poor are blessed and the rich are sent away empty, the mighty are cast from their thrones, the lowly are lifted, the peacemakers and the meek are blessed, and the proud-hearted are scattered (Luke 1:51–53).
And we’ll work with anyone who wants to work with us as we try to get to the kingdom—whether that looks like reducing poverty or eliminating abortions, doing something meaningful for the environment, changing bad laws, or trying to make sure the most vulnerable are cared for.
But we do have a peculiar way in which we hope. When I see posters with Barack Obama’s name with the word hope under it, I cringe. We are setting ourselves up for disappointment if our hope is built on anything less than Jesus.
 So when it comes to voting, I look at it not as a place to put our hope but a battle with the principalities and powers of this world. Voting is damage control. We try to decrease the amount of damage being done by those powers. And for the Christian, voting is not something we do every four years. We vote every day. We vote by how we spend money and what causes we support. We vote by how much gas we use and what products we buy. We align ourselves with things all the time. We pledge allegiance every day with our lives. The question is, Do those things line up with the upside-down kingdom of our God—where the poor, the meek, the merciful, the peacemakers are declared “blessed”?
TONY CAMPOLO: We have talked about taxes, about funding the empire, and how people often quote to me the verse that gives Jesus’ thoughts on whether we should pay. In that passage of Scripture, you recall, Jesus requested a coin and then asked, “Whose portrait is this? And whose inscription?” When the answer given was that it was “Caesar’s,” he said, “Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s and unto God what is God’s” (Mark 12:13–17). Tell me how you interpret that in the context of the kingdom of God.
SHANE CLAIBORNE: There are two occasions when the authorities interrogated Jesus regarding taxes. On one occasion, he borrowed a coin. (The fact that he did not have one is significant.) He asked the interrogators whose image was on that coin, and then said, “Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s” (Matthew 22:21). On the other occasion, he instructed Peter to go catch a fish, telling him the fish would have a four-drachma coin in its mouth for the tax collectors (Matthew 17:27). (Try that on Tax Day!)
We are setting ourselves up for disappointment if our hope is built on anything less than Jesus. —Shane Claiborne
Both of these stories are usually interpreted as proof that Christians must simply submit to the authorities and give Caesar whatever he asks of us (notably with little regard of whether Caesar is a dictator or elected, evil or benevolent). But it seems Jesus has got something more clever up his sleeve.
In both instances, Jesus is asked a straightforward, yes-or-no question: “Do you pay taxes?” In both cases, his response subverts the question, going deeper to challenge its basic assumptions. He doesn’t dodge the questions; he transcends them. He forces his listeners, taxpayers and tax collectors, to ponder. To what, exactly, does Caesar have a right? What has Caesar’s image, and what has God’s image? What is Caesar’s, and what is God’s?
I am particularly fond of the fish stunt. It is as though Jesus is winking at Caesar, saying, “Oh, Caesar can have his coins . . . I made the fish.” Caesar can have his silly metals; after all he can keep making more of them even if they aren’t worth a dime. But coins have no life in them. Human life is branded with the image of God, and Caesar does not own that. In a nation where such a high percentage of taxes go to military and hence ultimately to death-dealing pursuits, this teaching should give every tax-paying Christian long and troubled pause. Once we’ve given to God what is God’s, there isn’t a lot left over for Caesar.
TONY CAMPOLO: Jesus seems to be saying that though Caesar’s image is on the coin, you have to decide whether it belongs to Caesar or whether it belongs to God. Jesus is asking, “Are you going to use your money the way Caesar wants it to be used, or do you want it to be used the way God wants it to be used?” He’s throwing the decision back on those religious leaders who are trying to trap him with their questions. Each of them will have to decide whether the money in question ultimately belongs to Caesar or should it be used the way God wants it to be used. When there is conflict between what God requires and the demands of the government, each of us has an important decision to make concerning taxes.
We have talked a little bit about taxes and military spending. Now here is a related question that I am asked regularly: “Where in the Bible can you find any justification for the government taxing us and then using our money to help poor people?” My questioners go on to say, “I agree with you that Jesus calls upon us to respond to the needs of the poor, but isn’t this the task of the church? It doesn’t tell me in the Bible that it’s the task of the government to take care of poor people.” Of course, they don’t mention the fact that the church isn’t doing it. What’s more, they don’t acknowledge that the needs of the poor are so massive that the church doesn’t have the financial resources to meet those needs.
While I can see how the government has, at times, wasted taxpayers’ money and I can admit that too often its programs are ineffective, I also can see the good that government does. My task as a citizen is to get the government to do more good and less inefficient and wasteful work. There is no question in my mind that God is bigger than the church and that the church will be used in God’s endeavors, but not only the church. In God’s work in the world, all principalities, all powers, all dominions, and all thrones will be used (Ephesians 1:19–23).
In God’s work in the world, all principalities, all powers, all dominions, and all thrones will be used. —Tony Campolo
If you go to the book of Colossians, you will find that all the principalities and powers were created by God and for God’s purposes in the world (Colossians 1:16–17). It is the task of government, which is one of those principalities and powers, to do the will of God every bit as much as it is the task of the institutional church to do the will of God. Insofar as the church fails to do the will of God, I am called upon to help it discover and to do the will of God; and I am called upon to help the government to do the same. Not only am I supposed to challenge the government to do God’s will but I am to do the same for other powers. Included in these principalities and powers are corporate structures such as labor unions, General Motors, Ford, IBM, Apple, and Walmart. I have to ask all these suprahuman entities if they are functioning in accord with the will of God, because they are imposing themselves on people and influencing their everyday lives.
If a government that is able to deliver massive numbers of people in Africa from poverty fails to do so, then Christians should challenge that government to do the will of God, especially when the government of our own country has taken 40 percent of the world’s resources in order to make possible our affluent, middle-class lifestyle, despite the fact that we make up only 5 percent of the world’s population.
Consider the AIDS crisis in Africa, which President George W. Bush addressed with a commitment of $19 billion. Our people should lend support to such an effort. This is not a Democratic thing, nor is it a Republican thing. It’s the thing that God calls the government to do in order to bring good to all humanity. Governments are created, says Romans 13, to do good for their citizens, and we have the right to resist governments when they don’t do what is good for their people. We also have the responsibility to encourage governments when they do act in ways that are good.
In Matthew 25:31–46, we read that God will judge the nations in accord with how each nation cared for the poor, cared for those in prison, and how well they accepted aliens. Please note that God holds nations, not just the church, responsible for caring for the poor. That passage of Scripture should answer those who question whether or not there is a national responsibility to care for those who are needy.
Given the times in which we live and the vast needs of the poor in both America and the world, the good that should be done for those who are impoverished requires that church and state work alongside each other to achieve this. My hope is that Red Letter Christians work together toward that end.
Tony Campolo is founder of the Evangelical Association for the Promotion of Education (EAPE) and professor emeritus of sociology at Eastern University. Shane Claiborne is a Red Letter Christian and a founding partner of The Simple Way community, a radical faith community that lives among and serves the homeless in the Kensington neighborhood of Philadelphia. He is the co-author, with Chris Haw, of Jesus for President.This article is excerpted from Tony and Shane's new book Red Letter Revolution: What If Jesus Really Meant What He Said.
http://sojo.net/blogs/2012/10/29/tony-campolo-and-shane-claiborne-conversation-about-politics/?continue 
 

13 November 2010

In God-fearing USA, where is the decency? from USA TODAY 25OKT10

A call for civility during the mid-term election campaigning, a valid reflection after the election and something to be considered when the new congress is sworn in......
Thank goodness we have the DeMoss-Davis duo and people like Jim Wallis, leader of the progressive evangelical group Sojourners, to remind us that politics should be dedicated to the common good, not one's own party, and that civility lines the path to a higher place.
Wallis, in announcing Sojourners' civility campaign this month, laced his declaration with biblical references that show how civility should be a special calling of Christians active in the public square. Among them: James 1:19 ("Be quick to listen, slow to speak, and slow to become angry"), Ephesians 4:31 ("Get rid of all bitterness, rage and anger, brawling and slander, along with every form of malice"), and Ephesians 4:25 ("Put off falsehood and speak truthfully"). Wallis also invoked the Sojourners motto: "No permanent friends, no permanent enemies, only permanent issues."
Click here to see this article at its original site: USA Today

27 August 2010

Martin Luther King Jr. Was a Social Justice Christian from SOJO 26AUG10

I just read MLK's speech at Western Michigan University on 18DEC63, have posted it on this blog on a separate page (Speeches of Rev Martin Luther King, JR) the link is here

http://www.wmich.edu/library/archives/mlk/transcription.html

He was a great man, and was taken from us too soon. Read this speech to experience the faith, vision, compassion and strength that kept him going, it is amazing and inspiring. Below is the SOJO article.
 
This coming Saturday, August 28 will mark the 47th anniversary of the March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom, where King delivered his famous "I Have a Dream Speech." Glenn Beck has chosen this day to deliver his own speech from the steps of the Lincoln memorial.
On that same morning I will be speaking at the dedication ceremony of a work of public art that commemorates the words and legacy of King. It is not a protest. Rather, it is an opportunity to reflect on what this great American had to say and is still saying to our country today. Whenever we take the time to collectively consider what that dream was, we all benefit.
My picture has graced the Glenn Beck blackboard a number of times over the past year. I am quite sure that if the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. were alive today, he would have been on Glenn Beck's blackboard long before I would have ever been considered. That is because Martin Luther King Jr. was clearly a Social Justice Christian -- the term and people that Beck constantly derides. If the Christians of King's era had listened to Glenn Beck, they would have been forced to walk out on MLK's "I Have a Dream" speech. If they were to heed his advice to turn in social justice pastors to the church authorities, they all would have had to turn in Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
On December 18, 1963, at Western Michigan University, King gave a speech whose topic was "social justice and the emerging new age." If Glenn Beck had been there, I don't doubt that he would have gotten up and walked out as he has told his viewers to do if they hear "social justice" from their pastors. It might be foolish, but I hope that as Glenn Beck prepares for his rally on Saturday, he takes the time to read this speech and think about what it says. In it King explained why for justice to be just it can not only be individual, but must also be social:
"All I'm saying is simply this, that all life is interrelated, that somehow we're caught in an inescapable network of mutuality tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly affects all indirectly. For some strange reason, I can never be what I ought to be until you are what you ought to be. You can never be what you ought to be until I am what I ought to be. This is the interrelated structure of reality."
This is why in the Old Testament, God commands his people to be charitable but also to work for justice. The people of God are to give offerings of their own free will, but there are also laws that show the government has a legitimate role to play. As a Christian, I believe that Jesus changes people's hearts and lives, and that is something that government policy can never compete with. But, I also believe that personal charity does not do the work of justice. Here is how King put it in that same speech:
"Now the other myth that gets around is the idea that legislation cannot really solve the problem and that it has no great role to play in this period of social change because you've got to change the heart and you can't change the heart through legislation. You can't legislate morals. The job must be done through education and religion. Well, there's half-truth involved here. Certainly, if the problem is to be solved then in the final sense, hearts must be changed. Religion and education must play a great role in changing the heart. But we must go on to say that while it may be true that morality cannot be legislated, behavior can be regulated. It may be true that the law cannot change the heart but it can restrain the heartless. It may be true that the law cannot make a man love me but it can keep him from lynching me and I think that is pretty important, also. So there is a need for executive orders. There is a need for judicial decrees. There is a need for civil rights legislation on the local scale within states and on the national scale from the federal government."
King recognized misunderstandings like this as obstacles to social justice. But, ultimately he was hopeful:
"I think with all of these challenges being met and with all of the work, and determination going on, we will be able to go this additional distance and achieve the ideal, the goal of the new age, the age of social justice."
Yes, King named social justice as the goal of the new age. This is why so many Christians were willing to turn themselves in to Glenn Beck as Social Justice Christians. It was not difficult for them to choose between King's interpretation of the gospel and Beck's interpretation that I know some in his own Mormon church are not comfortable with Did King believe that the role of government was only to eliminate discrimination? No. As he wrote in "Showdown for Nonviolence" in 1968, it played a role in ending poverty too:
"We will place the problems of the poor at the seat of government of the wealthiest nation in the history of mankind. If that power refuses to acknowledge its debt to the poor, it would have failed to live up to its promise to insure 'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness to its citizens.'" (From A Testament of Hope: The Essential Writings and Speeches of Martin Luther King Jr.)
Now, Beck and I do have one area of significant agreement. When he spoke about the civil rights movement in context of the debate around health care he said, "Who were the civil rights marchers? They were people with profound belief in God." This is true. Both Beck and I would probably agree that the most powerful social movements are rooted in deep faith. But he finished that thought saying, "They were trying to set things right. They weren't crying for social justice, they were crying out for equal justice." Beck's mistake is to somehow think that the two can be separated. Beck has lied again and again about me and so many others; it saddens me to hear him now try to rewrite the legacy of Martin Luther King. When you do the work of social justice there are always criticisms, detractors, and those who will slander and lie. But, in the words of Dr. King in 1961 to the AFL-CIO:
"Yes, before the victory is won, some will be misunderstood. Some will be called Reds and Communists merely because they believe in economic justice and the brotherhood of man. But we shall overcome."
Glenn Beck has continually called me, Sojourners, and many others "communists, socialists, and Marxists" because we call for "economic and social justice." If he were an honest man, he would have to include Dr. King as well. But King must have been thinking about the Glenn Becks of his time when he concluded his speech at Western Michigan University:
"In spite of the difficulties of this hour, I am convinced that we have the resources to make the American Dream a reality. I am convinced of this because I believe Carlyle is right: 'No lie can live forever.' I am convinced of this because I believe William Cullen Bryant is right: 'Truth pressed to earth will rise again.' I am convinced of this because I think James Russell Lowell is right: 'Truth forever on the scaffold, Wrong forever on the throne; Yet that scaffold sways the future, And behind the dim unknown, Standeth God within the shadow, Keeping watch above His own.' Somehow with this faith, we will be able to adjourn the councils of despair and bring new life into the dark chambers of pessimism. With this faith, we will be able to transform the jangling discords of our nation to a beautiful symphony of brotherhood. This will be a great day. This will be the day when all of God's children, black [people] and white [people], Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics will be able to join hands and sing in the words of the old Negro spiritual, 'Free at last! Free at last! Thank God, Almighty, we are free at last!'"
+Support Sojourners' work to clarify the significance of King's I Have a Dream speech.

17 April 2010

This Isn’t About Wallis vs. Beck -- It’s About Biblical Social Justice from SOJO 15APR10

Glenn Beck continues his attacks on Jim Wallis and Sojourners / SOJO and the concept of religious social justice. Here is the latest article from SOJO, click the header to see the video clip of the Washington Post interview with Jim Wallis. Last is the SOJO article 'Glen Beck as Theologian' addressing his manipulation of 2 Thessalonias 3 "For even when we were with you, we gave you this rule: “If a man will not work, he shall not eat.” By the by, Beck still refuses the to meet with Jim Wallis and have an open, public discussion on social justice.

This post was written in response to the Washington Post On Faith question of the week, which they titled, "Wallis vs. Beck: The politics of social justice." It asked, "How does the pursuit of justice fit into your faith? Is 'social justice' an ideology or a theology?"

I’m glad for the discussion, but “Wallis vs. Beck” really isn’t the point. Over several weeks, Glenn Beck has attacked the term and concept of “social justice”; likened it to Marxism, Communism, and Nazism; told people to leave their churches if the words even appeared on congregational Web sites; and instructed Christians to “turn in” their pastors and priests to church authorities if they preached or taught “social justice.” That’s what he said, and is still saying. I felt it necessary to respond when I heard that a Fox News personality had attacked the heart of the mission statement of Sojourners: “to articulate the biblical call to social justice.” He only attacked me when I challenged his misrepresentations and distortions of a central Christian teaching that is integral to biblical faith.

If Beck had merely attacked “big government” again, as he does each night, or just expressed his strong libertarian philosophy that government bears no responsibility for issues like poverty, or re-stated his preference of personal responsibility over social responsibility for solving societal problems, nobody would have even responded -- it wouldn’t have been news. But what he did say, and continues to say, is that “social justice” is both a dangerous and destructive teaching. The term continues to be derided on his famous blackboard, along with whoever challenges his ideas.

While I have agreed that cause of social justice has sometimes been politicized for ideological purposes by both Left and Right, I continue to defend the term itself as biblical and at the center of church teachings across the centuries and our many traditions (including Beck’s own Mormon Church, as many of its leaders have pointed out). And I have been heartened to see Christians of diverse political views and voting patterns rise to defend the integrity of social justice as core to the gospel.

While Beck has yet to respond to a standing invitation to a public dialogue about what social justice really means, his comments have already sparked a broad national conversation -- as is well represented here in the On Faith discussion. Ironically, because of Beck’s nightly assaults, I haven’t seen such a national conversation in years about the meaning of biblical social justice. Several heads of church denominations have called to tell me that their pastors are actually preaching more about social justice because Glenn Beck has told them not to, and that thousands of pastors have turned themselves in to them (as church authorities) as “social justice pastors.” In addition, more than 50,000 have turned themselves in to Beck (literally overflowing his inbox).

God indeed has a sense of humor and I guess we should now thank the polarizing pundit for sparking such a rich and robust public debate. So “What is biblical social justice?” Let the conversation continue, with or without Glenn Beck.


Glenn Beck as Theologian
by Chuck Gutenson 04-15-2010

http://blog.sojo.net/2010/04/15/glenn-beck-as-theologian/

Did you know that scripture says, “there is no God?” Yep, it sure does, right there in Psalm 14:1, right after the words “The fool has said in his heart…” Interesting, isn’t it? How easy it is to pick and choose verses or parts of verses and make the Bible say just about anything we want. If one takes the last half of this verse, you get precisely the opposite meaning than the text intends to convey.

It is very easy to do this, and one does not need to cut apart single verses. One can even make scripture say something very different than a broader textual intent would convey by taking whole verses, even whole passages, out of context. Consider, for example, the recent pronouncement by Glenn Beck that the solution to social justice concerns is that Jesus says “get a job.” To buttress his case, he cites 2 Thessalonians 3, which reads:

For even when we were with you, we gave you this rule: “If a man will not work, he shall not eat.”

Now, this is an interesting passage, snatched from its immediate context and deployed as a clever proof text by our ersatz theologian. Well, what if one actually takes the context into consideration? Does that give us any enlightenment as to what Paul (the speaker in this passage, not Jesus, by the way) might have meant? As one might expect, there is — and as one might also expect, the passage means rather a different thing.

The immediate problem Paul is addressing here is the heightened expectations around the Parousia — the Second Coming of Christ. Specifically, some had decided to “sit around” waiting for the Lord to return, rather than staying engaged with life. They had become slothful. Now, is the normal expectation that those who can, work? Well, of course. But, to suggest that this passage can be ripped from its context and deployed as a policy position on social justice is nonsensical. This passage in no way undermines the biblical call to care about just social structures, in no way does it undermine the arguments for social safety nets. In short, it simply has nothing to do with the issue for which it was deployed.

Chuck Gutenson is the chief operating officer for Sojourners.

21 March 2010

THE FAMILY RESEARCH COUNCIL, WOLVES, AND SHEPHERD'S CLOTHING from SOJO 16MAR10

by Chuck Gutenson 03-16-2010

In a recent Family Research Council e-mail, in an article titled, “Rev. Wallis: Wolf in Shepard’s [sic] Clothing?” Tony Perkins aligned himself with Fox News commentator Glenn Beck’s recent attacks. Perkins said:

the term “social justice” has become a code-term used by the Religious Left to mean everything from socialized medicine to redistribution of income. Their argument goes like this: Since God wants Christians to show compassion to the poor, government should work to meet the needs of everyone. …

Last week, talk show host Glenn Beck said on his program, “I beg you, look for the words ’social justice’ or ‘economic justice’ on your church website. If you find it, run as fast as you can.” To which Jim Wallis, a leader of the Religious Left, responded that Beck “attacks the very heart of our Christian faith, and Christians should no longer watch his show.” Wallis’s comments indicate how deeply Beck’s comments cut. He has been the Left’s main proponent of merging the biblical idea of justice with the liberal agenda to transform America into a place where the government orchestrates all facets of the economy.

Now, let me see if I got this right. Within the broader Christian tradition, there are a range of reasonable positions that have been held on the relationship between private and public roles in caring for the least of these. As I have written about in detail before, there are plenty of biblical reasons to conclude that God intends governments to be involved in care for the least. That God ordains governmental institutions is crystal clear, that God’s agenda elevates care for the least to one of the highest concerns is similarly clear. Seems odd to think, then, that God intends governments not be involved in care for the least.

Reasonable people have embraced this position, and reasonable people have held Tony’s. Don’t misunderstand me: at the end of the day, one of these positions is right and one is wrong, and I am confident that Tony’s is wrong. However, does Tony really think that a disagreement on this point means that the other should be characterized as a “wolf in shepherd’s clothing” — complete with a cartoon of a drooling, fang-toothed caricature? Is that the best we can do? Has our culture-speak so deteriorated to the point that we must demonize those who disagree with us, rather than engaging their positions in some detail?

Now, having pushed back on the failure in civility, let me move more to the substance of the argument. First, Tony claims:

The Bible teaches that the state has a very limited role, a view reflected in the Constitution.

Sadly, Tony does not provide us with any “proof texts” here, and it does seem his position has become what Stan Hauerwas calls “American civil religion” — a position that confuses being American with being Christian. I would rather hear Tony give me his theological argument. He goes on to observe:

the failed social programs of the past 40 years have shown, when Big Government usurps the role of churches, private charities, and voluntary associations, it creates dependence on programs that just don’t work.

Interesting. Is Tony suggesting we do away with Social Security? Is that one of the “failed social programs” he has in mind? One only need look at poverty rates among the elderly before and after the inception of Social Security to draw a different conclusion. Medicare? Is that another failure he has in mind? Again, a simple look at access to health care for the elderly before and after its inception tells another story. And, of course, the idea that government “usurped the role of the churches” is historically absurd. Governments did not get involved because care for the least was going so well, but rather because it was not.

As I note, there are folks who read scripture as Tony does, and I’d love for him to tell us his theological arguments. But it really would be cool if we could have a debate about ideas that don’t involve trying to score cheap rhetorical points by moving to name calling and personal attacks.

Chuck Gutenson is the chief operating officer for Sojourners.

13 February 2010

ELIZABETH WARREN AND GOLIATH from SOJO 11FEB10

I had a most instructive conversation this week with Elizabeth Warren, the Harvard economist who is also the Chair of the TARP Congressional Oversight Panel. Warren has a way of cutting through the jargon and confusion of many economists and of this economic crisis -- right to the moral core of the issues at stake. I knew her for her keen insights, but I didn’t know she was from, as she puts it, a “mixed marriage from Oklahoma” -- Baptist and Methodist -- and that she is a former Methodist Sunday school teacher. In the interview I did with her for Sojourners, her moral and even theological comments were as impressive as her economic analysis of our present crisis. She said the battle for financial regulatory reform is like the battle between David and Goliath. (You can read the interview in the April issue of Sojourners magazine, which comes out in early March.)
Warren’s narrative of the U.S. economy, and the banking industry in particular, was very clarifying. For most of U.S. history, our country went through repeated periods of boom and bust, with all the consequences of those cycles. But after the Great Depression, a number of new financial regulations -- rules for the road -- were put into place that were designed to protect average Americans in particular from the continued abuses of the big banks and the often terrible results in bad times for ordinary people. Two important examples were the FDIC (Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation) to protect people’s savings and the Glass Steagall Act of 1933 to prevent banks from speculating with depositors' money. And the new rules worked for several decades, creating both prosperity and security for many American families and an emerging middle class. But starting in 1980, the rules were first watered down and gradually removed, and banks were free again to engage in both the abusive and very risky speculative behavior that helped to bring on the Great Depression, and resulted again in the current Great Recession.
She explained how credit card and mortgage application forms used to be only a page or two and were both clear and understandable to the average person -- even allowing people to easily compare and contrast the deals offered. But now, as all of us know, these forms have expanded to 30 pages or more with lots of complications, hard to comprehend provisions, and “fine print” that cleverly hides a long list or traps, tricks, and a myriad of both exploitive arrangements and outright abuses that greatly benefit banks at the expense of borrowers and card holders. In clear moral terms, Warren described the current behavior of our biggest banks as deliberately deceiving, entrapping, and cheating unsuspecting customers into very precarious and ultimately disastrous financial positions. And with no more rules of the road, the banks were leading their customers into the financial ditch. An economic crisis has been the result with massive suffering and pain for millions of Americans.
We are now living in a “lawless” economic environment, according to Warren, where our biggest banks have become our most dangerous predators -- and with no protections for the rest of us against the “law of the jungle,” as she puts it. The consequences for our economy, our culture, our families, and even our souls have been disastrous. This is not the way we should want to live, Warren says, and it is creating a world which we should not want our children to grow up in. She makes the urgent case for reform with the compelling analysis of a top economist, the family values of a grandmother, and the moral arguments of a person of faith. The sins of the financial world have become both a moral, and even religious, issue from the perspective of the Methodist tradition “which still shapes me.”
Warren is the “mother” of the idea for a new Consumer Financial Protection Agency (CFPA),which is in the current financial reform bill recently passed by the House of Representatives, and is now slowly making its way through the U.S. Senate. But the big banks are aggressively fighting back, trying to prevent their own regulation only one year after the financial meltdown for which they were in large part responsible. There seems to be no remorse, let alone repentance, from the big banks -- only record new profits enabled by their taxpayer-funded bailouts, and enormous bonuses to the executives who made the very decisions that brought the economic system down on the heads and hearts of so many Americans. The biggest banks in America are giving shame a bad name.
Why are new rules, regulations, and protections necessary? Because of the human condition, the realities of human nature, and a biblically orthodox understanding of human sinfulness. Yes, the reasons we need the protections offered by a Consumer Financial Protection Agency are as theological as economic. And it is amazing to me how many of those who oppose any regulation of Wall Street also claim to be religious conservatives. They subscribe to what I label in my new book, Rediscovering Values: On Wall Street, Main Street, and Your Street — A Moral Compass for the New Economy, “the myth of the sinless market.” I am a conservative Christian too, conservative enough to have a healthy appreciation for human sins, human failings, and fallen-ness, and after witnessing the behavior of America’s biggest banks during this economic crisis, an old theological term called human depravity. It is simply bad theology to trust large corporations not to pollute our waters, poison our air, or cheat their unsuspecting customers. They have to be prevented from doing so for the sake of the common good. Good financial and economic rules reflect, not only good economics, but also good theology. And the free market fundamentalism of Wall Street’s defenders is, among other things, bad theology.
But as Elizabeth Warren, a good Methodist, warns, the banks are trying everything they can think of to kill financial reform. And we must not let them do that. In the name of a fairer economy, of family values, of moral values, and of sound biblical theology, the faith community must now make itself heard on the urgent issue of financial regulatory reform. We must hold our biggest banks accountable to the common good. So let our Senators not just hear from the bankers, but now also from pastors who see what such abusive banking behavior has done to their families and parishioners, to devastated communities with shuttered houses, to the prison of debt that more Americans find themselves in. People of faith across the land must now tell their elected representatives that we will be “watching and praying” to see what they will do about necessary financial reform. We don’t have the money in our financial coffers that the banks do to finance their political campaigns, but we do have our voice and our votes which will be turned against them if they vote against the best interests of our people and for the greed of the bankers. Jesus said it well -- choose this day who you will serve, God or Mammon (Money). Let’s now put that choice to our Senators, who need to hear from us this next week while they are in their district offices during the Presidents' Day recess. Critical decisions are being made for or against critical financial reform right now.
Jim Wallis' interview with Elizabeth Warren will be featured in the April issue of Sojourners magazine