Defining "Evangelicals" in an Election Year
September 29, 2011
Jim Wallis
is the author of Rediscovering Values: A Guide for Economic and Moral
Recovery, and CEO of Sojourners. He blogs at www.godspolitics.com.
Follow Jim on Twitter @JimWallis.
Here we go again. Presidential elections are coming and the role of “the evangelicals” is predictably becoming a hot political story.
Ironically, voices on both the right and the left want to describe most or all evangelicals as zealous members of the ultra-conservative political base.
Why? Perhaps because some conservative Republicans want to claim a religious legitimacy and constituency for their ideological agenda, and some liberal writers seem hell-bent on portraying religious people as intellectually-flawed right-wing crazies with dangerous plans for the country.
Let me try to be clear as someone who is part of a faith community that is, once again, being misrepresented, manipulated, and maligned. Most people believe me to be a progressive political voice in America. And I am an evangelical Christian.
I believe in one God, the centrality and Lordship of God’s son Jesus Christ, the power of the Holy Spirit, the authority of the scriptures, the saving death of the crucified Christ and his bodily resurrection -- not as a metaphor but a historical event. Yep, the whole nine yards.
I love my liberal church friends, but am more theologically conservative. I have many allies on the religious left, but I am not a member of it. I work closely with brothers and sisters of other faith traditions where we have common concerns, but I will never compromise the truth of my own faith.
I also collaborate with people of no religious affiliation at all, because I believe that religion has no monopoly on morality. But I also believe in evangelism, and have called and led people to faith in Jesus Christ. Like I said, I am an evangelical.
For me (and a growing number of others), it is precisely because we are Bible-believing and Jesus following evangelical Christians, that we have a fundamental commitment to social, economic, and racial justice, to be a good stewards of God’s creation, to be peacemakers in a world of conflict and war, and to be consistent advocates for human life and dignity wherever they are threatened. Because we are all made in the image of God. We are all God’s children.
And, because we are first members of the global body of Christ, before we are Americans, we don’t believe God blesses and loves our country more than others, and that the gospel doesn’t co-exist well with empires.
Millions of evangelicals are neither conservative Republicans, part of the Religious Right, nor members of the tea party, and they don’t believe that Christian “Dominionists” or any other religious group, should take over America -- despite what a rash of recent articles and commentaries have said.
Case in point: In the new book, Left, Right and Christ: Evangelical Faith in Politics, a hefty and provocative read that drops next week, Sojourners’ own Lisa Sharon Harper and co-author, The King’s College professor D.C. Innes, demonstrate that two authentically evangelical voices can hold very different views across a wide range of political, economic, and social issues. Many -- even most -- evangelicals don’t fit media stereotypes and are growing weary of hearing them repeated over and over again, especially from writers who know nothing about us, have an agenda to use or distort who we are and what we believe, or simply should know better.
After the election in 2004, I wrote a book the next year called God’s Politics: Why the Right Gets it Wrong and the Left Doesn’t Get It. Now in 2011, the Right still gets it wrong when they claim that most evangelicals are firmly in their base; and the Left still doesn’t get it when they tacitly agree with the Right’s claim that all the evangelicals essentially belong to the most conservative candidates. But the myth survives. Why? Perhaps because it’s in the interest of people on both sides to keep it going.
The Republicans have a longstanding strategy of using religion for their political purposes, while Democrats are just beginners at their own “faith outreach.” And some liberal writers -- many of whom live in the same zip codes in New York, Washington, D.C., and California -- seem all too eager to discredit religion as part of their perennial habit and practice.
On the one hand we have religious fundamentalists who are eager to use evangelicals, and on the other hand we have secular fundamentalists who want prove that evangelicals are stupid and dangerous extremists. But millions of evangelicals feel stuck and almost invisible in the middle of that political and cultural battle. One of the best responses to the recent articles about evangelicals came from Mark I. Pinsky, author of A Jew Among the Evangelicals: A Guide for the Perplexed and a self-professed “secular liberal,” who has covered evangelicals astutely for many years and counsels his fellow writers and commentators to take a deep breath and stick to the facts.
The facts do belie the stereotypes. Evangelicals run the political gamut from conservative and moderate to progressive and decidedly liberal. To suggest that most evangelicals reside on the far right is simply not true.
Younger evangelicals are more concerned than some of their parents with issues of social justice, human rights, environmental protection, and peace. Evangelicals in black and Hispanic churches tend to be more focused than many of their white co-religionists on economic and racial justice, and related issues such as immigration. Differences do exist between older and younger evangelicals, and between white and ethic evangelical churches. And the evangelical center has shifted significantly over the last decade.
Every journalist who wants to write intelligently about evangelicals should begin by reading the National Evangelical Association (NAE) landmark statement For the Health of the Nation: An Evangelical Call to Civic Responsibility, that spells out biblical commitments on poverty, the environment and climate change, immigration reform, war and peace, the protection of life, and the promotion of family, which should clearly dispel any notion that evangelicals as a monolith adhere to an ultra-right-wing political agenda. Rather, the NAE’s evangelical social and political ethic challenges all outposts along the political spectrum.
The untold story almost nobody covers is that global evangelicals have almost no affinity with America’s religious right or tea party. Even the math from election exit polls, challenge the political stereotypes.
In the 2008 election, Barack Obama won Indiana by 28,391 votes with 160,918 more white evangelicals voting for him than voted for John Kerry in 2004.
Obama had a 16-point swing among white evangelicals over Kerry, which clearly contributed to his victory in the state.
Michigan had an 8-point swing among white evangelicals while Colorado saw a 20-point swing.
Similar shifts in evangelical votes made crucial differences in other swing states such as North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida.
Democrats lost those gains in the 2010 election, proving that political shifts among evangelicals may never be permanent and that many religious voters may be voting more on issues of concern to them, rather than being loyal partisans and party members.
Isn’t that the way it should be?
In the future, evangelicals may likely vote more and more as independents, depending on the issues and the candidates, rather than according to any party loyalty.
It is precisely that kind of moral integrity -- in politics and any other arena -- that should re-define “evangelical” in this or any election.
God and Class Warfare
September 22, 2011
Jim Wallis
is the author of Rediscovering Values: A Guide for Economic and Moral
Recovery, and CEO of Sojourners. He blogs at www.godspolitics.com.
Follow Jim on Twitter @JimWallis.
The hot phrase in Washington, D.C., this week is "class warfare."
Paul Ryan, John Boehner, Mitch McConnell, and a host of Republican presidential candidates have attacked President Barack Obama as a class warrior because he has suggested that the wealthiest individuals in the country, along with the largest corporations, should pay what he calls their "fair share" of the costs of both deficit reduction and putting Americans back to work.
Well, let's be clear: There really is a class war going on, and the upper class is winning.
As former President Bill Clinton also pointed out this week, 90 percent of income gains in the last decade went to the top 10 percent, and 40 percent of the increased wealth went to the top 1 percent. The middle class has lost ground in the same period. And we can now say that the only growth in this economy seems to be the skyrocketing poverty figures that the Census Bureau released last week. Almost 50 million Americans are now in poverty -- the highest rate in 50 years, including 22 percent of all our children -- in this the richest country in the world.
Let's put it another way: The only people doing well in this economy are the people at the very top, some of whose selfish behavior caused this recession in the first place. Only they have "recovered" from the crisis they helped create. The rest of us are still trying to recover. That's a war being waged by Wall Street against Main Street. And Wall Street is winning that war.
But when anybody talks about fairness or equity or morality in economics, or when anyone even begins to challenge the greatest inequality since the 1920s, they are quickly accused of engaging in "class warfare." So why is it when the top 1 percent of the country controls 42 percent of the nation's financial wealth -- more than 90 percent of the rest of us -- and the ratio of CEO pay to average workers salaries is 400 to 1, it is NOT class warfare? Yet simply calling for a return of the highest-end tax rates to the 1990s levels IS?
Imagine a bomber pilot cruising high above the clouds, utterly destroying a city below him. After much devastation, a kid with a sling shot hurls a stone at the airplane that is leveling his city and community. The stone pings on the fuselage and the pilot becomes indignant. "These people are engaged in warfare," he exclaims. "Who do they think they are? This kind of behavior will divide people and is just irresponsible!"
Wall Street has been devastating Main Street for some time. And when the politicians -- most of them bought by Wall Street -- say nothing, it's called "responsible economics." But when somebody, anybody, complains about people suffering and that the political deck in official Washington has been stacked in favor of Wall Street, the accusation of class warfare quickly emerges. "Just who do these people think they are," they ask. The truth is that the people screaming about class warfare this week aren't really concerned about the warfare. They're just concerned that their class -- or the class that has bought and paid for their political careers -- continues to win the war.
So where is God in all of this? Is God into class warfare? No, of course not. God really does love us all, sinners and saints alike, rich and poor, mansion dwellers and ghetto residents. But the God of the Bible has a special concern for the poor and is openly suspicious of the rich. And if that is not clear in the Bible, nothing is.
You might say when it comes to economics, God has a bias toward the poor. God's prophets say that nations will be judged by how they treat the poor and vulnerable -- not by how much they lower tax rates for the wealthy. Listen to what the prophets Amos, Micah, Isaiah, and Jeremiah say about the rich and the poor, about fairness and justice, about inequality and equity. Is there any doubt that if the biblical prophets were saying such things in the House of Representatives or on Fox News today that they, too, would all be accused of class warfare?
What about Jesus? Mary, the mother of Jesus, spoke clearly about his coming and his meaning in history when she prophesied about his mission in her famous prayer/song known as the Magnificat. She predicts how the child in her womb will reverse the status quo, saying, "He has brought down rulers from their thrones but has lifted up the humble. He has filled the hungry with good things and sent the rich away empty." These are not the words of a humble and charitable service provider, but the language of a social revolutionary who would certainly be charged with class warfare today on conservative talk radio.
Jesus fulfilled his mother's prophesy in his own Nazareth Manifesto -- his first words, in Luke 4 -- by saying, "The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to bring good news to the poor." He clearly should have been more sensitive to the rich who, after all, are job creators, right? How did all the prophets and Jesus miss that essential economic point?
In 2008, the wealthiest 400 Americans on average paid only 18 percent of their income in taxes. But they (and their political representatives) continue to angrily push back against the so-called "Buffett Rule," which would require wealthy people to at least pay taxes at rates closer to what their secretaries and other employees do.
"Class warfare might make for good politics, but it makes for rotten economics," Rep. Paul Ryan said on "Fox News Sunday" earlier this week.
But, according to a new report by the International Monetary Fund, Ryan is just wrong. The IMF report says the widening income gap is bad for economic recovery. Growing income inequality actually hinders economic growth, and reducing economic inequality actually helps spur the economy, the report found.
The IMF study concluded that a 10 percent decrease in inequality actually increased the expected economic growth by 50 percent. "Sustainable economic reform," the authors write, "is possible only when its benefits are widely shared."
So the call for economic fairness -- what Paul Ryan decries as "class warfare" -- may not be "rotten economics" at all but, in fact, rather good economics, as well as good morality.
Maybe God has a point.
What is 'Biblical Politics'?
September 15, 2011
Jim Wallis
is the author of Rediscovering Values: A Guide for Economic and Moral
Recovery, and CEO of Sojourners. He blogs at www.godspolitics.com.
Follow Jim on Twitter @JimWallis.
Sojourners has always tried to understand and advocate for "biblical politics." But what does that mean now, especially as we approach another major election?
I was talking the other day to a Christian leader who has given his life to working with the poor. His approach is very grassroots -- he lives in a poor, virtually all-minority community and provides basic services for low-income people. He said, "If you work with and for the poor, you inevitably run into injustice." In other words, poverty isn't caused by accident. There are unjust systems and structures that create and perpetuate poverty and human suffering. And service alone is never enough; working to change both the attitudes and institutional arrangements that cause poverty is required.
To change injustice, you must confront politics. British abolitionist William Wilberforce, for example, didn't just call upon English Christians not to possess slaves, he wanted to end the slave trade, and that required a long political campaign. Martin Luther King Jr. wasn't content to just ask U.S. Christians not to personally practice discrimination against black people; he understood that the nation needed a civil rights law and a voting rights act. Both took leadership from the White House and votes in Congress. All these changes took politics to accomplish.
Another friend of mine recently told me that she had watched the powerful movie about Wilberforce, Amazing Grace, five times this year and was deeply inspired. I was too when I first watched the story of the Wesleyan convert who made ending slavery the mission of his life. But I've always thought that the movie focused too much on the man and not enough on the movement that swept the United Kingdom and made the political victory possible. Likewise, it was more than the inspiring rhetoric of King that propelled the civil rights movement. It was the Birmingham campaign, the dramatic events in Selma, and the march to Montgomery that focused the nation’s attention and lead to important legislative actions.
It takes a movement to change politics. Change doesn't ever start in Washington, but if public momentum can be built among millions of people, it eventually arrives in the nation's capital.
This is what the Bible teaches us. The scriptures reveal a God of justice, not merely a God of charity. Words such as oppression and justice fill the Bible. The most common objects of the prophets' judgments are kings, rulers, judges, employers -- the rich and the powerful in charge of the world's governments, courts, economies, systems, and structures. When those who are in charge mistreat the poor and vulnerable, say the scriptures, it is not just unkind but also wrong and unjust, and it makes God angry. The subjects of the scriptures' concern are always the widow and the orphan, the poor and oppressed, the victims of courts or unscrupulous employers, debtors whose debts need to be forgiven, strangers in the land who need to be welcomed. And the topics of the prophets' messages to the powerful are things like land, labor, capital, judicial decisions, employer practices, rulers' dictates, and the decisions of the powerful -- all the stuff of politics.
I believe that makes very suspect those who want to privatize most of these very public decisions, who claim to trust "the market" to work things out, who want to leave the powerful alone and the corporate elites unregulated and to relegate solving poverty to private charity, and who want to further reduce political accountability on those who rule the economy and society by "making government so small it can be drowned in a bathtub," as they proudly claim as their goal. The question should never be just about "big" or "small" government, but rather about effective and smart government that has the ability to hold both wealth and power accountable to the common good.
But biblical politics is never just about the candidates either, and some have made that mistake in recent elections. Putting one's hopes in political candidates and parties has only led to disappointment, frustration, and dangerous cynicism. There are systems and structures that undergird and shape the limits of the political agenda, and challenging those limits to get to root causes and real solutions is always the prophetic task. It is always movements that "change the wind," and only a change in the political wind can change political policies in Washington.
People of faith at our best may be the ultimate independents, engaged in politics only because of those moral issues that command our attention and willing to challenge all political sides on behalf of them. Moral independents will change politics more than will religious partisans, who make compromises on behalf of electoral victories. Fighting for justice, not partisan political goals, is the core of biblical politics -- and that will continue to be our vocation at Sojourners.
10 Years After 9/11: The Good and the Bad
September 8, 2011
Jim Wallis is the author of Rediscovering Values: A Guide for Economic and Moral Recovery, and CEO of Sojourners. He blogs at www.godspolitics.com. Follow Jim on Twitter @JimWallis.
On the morning of September 11, 2001, I was at home in Washington, D.C. getting ready to go to Sojourners' office. I was upstairs listening to the news on NPR when I heard the first confusing report of a plane crashing into the south tower of the World Trade Center. I immediately called downstairs to Joy and asked her to turn on the television to see what was going on. Moments later, as we ate breakfast together with our three-year-old son Luke, we watched the second plane strike the north tower. I still remember my first response to Joy, "This is going to be bad, very bad," I said.
Of course, I meant more than just the damage to the Twin Towers and the lives lost, which became far greater than any of us imagined at first. Rather, my first and deepest concern was what something like this could do to our our nation's soul. I was afraid of how America would respond to a terrorist attack of this scope.
But as the Towers collapsed, and the suffering of this horrible event became increasingly clear in the hours and days that followed, other parts of the American soul revealed themselves -- the heroic responses of the first responders, and a city and nation of people taking care of each other. As ordinary citizens gave their lives for strangers, they became our brothers' and sisters' keepers. In the days that followed the 9/11 attacks, the stories of pain, loss, and self-sacrifice brought Joy and me to tears several times. The suffering of many led to the service of many more.
For a moment, the world's last remaining superpower was vulnerable, and we all felt it. In Washington, people fled from downtown D.C., walking and running right past our house, and gathered to pray at places such as Sojourners' office. Joy helped Luke set up a little water station, as people frantically rushed by our house.
In our sudden sense of vulnerability we were now, and perhaps for the first time, like most of the world, where vulnerability is an accepted part of being human. And in those first days following 9/11, America, not the terrorists, had the high ground. The world did not identify with those who cruelly and murderously decided to take innocent lives in response to their grievances -- both real and imagined. Instead, the world identified with a suffering America -- even the front cover of the French newspaper Le Monde ran the headline, "We are all Americans now."
But it was Washington's response that I was most worried about. Within a short period of time, the official reaction to terrorism would simply be defined as war -- a decade of it -- resulting in many more innocent casualties than on September 11, 2001. In response to America's own suffering, many others in Afghanistan, Iraq, and around the world would now suffer -- all in the name of our war on terrorism. The opportunity for deeper understanding, reflection, and redirection would elude us as we sought to erase our vulnerability with the need to demonstrate our superior force and power. This was done quite easily in the early days of both our new wars. But now, we see that the longest series of wars in American history has failed to resolve or reverse the causes of the violence that struck us, or to make us safer. They just made it all worse.
The world expected and would have supported a focused and sustained effort to pursue and bring this small band of criminals to justice. But these last 10 years of manipulated and corrupted intelligence, endless war, practices and policies of torture, secret armies of assassination, global violations of human rights, indiscriminate violence with countless civilian casualties, and trillions of dollars wasted caused America to lose the high ground long ago. The arrogance of American power was our only response to the both the brutality and complexity of terrorism. Perhaps, this arrogance is most recently and brazenly exhibited in former Vice-President Dick Cheney's new book tour, where he boasts of having absolutely no regrets for any of the momentous decisions he took part in. These are decisions which have made the world an even more divided, polarized, dehumanized, and dangerous place -- 10 years after September 11, 2001.
But, fortunately, the official and failed response of Washington to the terrible tragedy of 9/11 has not been the only reponse. A new generation of Christians has asked how Jesus would respond to these same events. Many of them would agree with what Methodist Bishop Will Willimon recently said in the evangelical magazine Christianity Today: "American Christians may look back upon our response to 9/11 as our greatest Christological defeat … when our people felt vulnerable, they reached for the flag instead of the cross." As many of those who have grown up in the decade since 9/11 confront the conflicts of their world, they are reaching for different things than their government. They are forging alternative responses to issues of injustice and violence, and rejecting the terrorism and war sequence of Washington's twisted and failed moral logic.
And despite the hateful diatribes of fundamentalist leaders in all our religious traditions, other pastors have decided to love their neighbors, and even their enemies in response to Jesus' call. Their stories are slowly being told, from American neighborhoods where Muslims have moved in, to conflict areas around the world where faith is being used for bridge building and healing, instead of more revenge killings. Christian leaders are sharing meals, fasting, and prayer with Muslim leaders. Some have defended each other's congregations and homes in the face of heated threats and rhetoric. While differences between faith traditions are not being glossed over, the nature of a loving and reconciling God is being courageously affirmed across religious lines. In all of this, we are saying that government responses need not define our own.
Last weekend, my son Luke just turned 13 years old, and my son Jack is now eight years old. They both understand what Christianity and Islam are and are not. In their classrooms, they have friends who are Muslim. The other day, my son Jack, who missed the events of 9/11, heard a disparaging remark on television about Islam and quickly retorted, "That's not true, there is a Muslim boy in my class, and he is not like that at all." Luke and I recently watched the National Geographic special, which described the events of the day that we remember this week. It helped him to put the pieces in place from his memories of 9/11 as a three-year-old. I was struck with how he looks at the world with more sympathy than fear, and how strongly he feels about war's inability to solve any of the problems and conflicts between people.
Last year, the actions of extremists marred the commemoration of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, and ignited international violence. This year, many interfaith services will mark the 10th anniversary. Sojourners is co-sponsoring a press conference with the World Evangelical Alliance on Friday, September 9, which will overlook Ground Zero in New York City. Global Evangelical leaders will be calling for peace and unity, and we will say that while religion has historically been the cause of conflict, it can also serve as a solution. We will give examples of Christians and Muslims living together peacefully, even in the most conflicted parts of the world, and call for Christians to be good neighbors to the Muslim community. As we gather in our houses of worship this Sunday, September 11, many pastors will remind their parishioners of two fundamental truths: We must not be overcome by evil, but rather overcome evil with good, and "they will know we are Christians by our love."
Hurricanes, Hype, and Hope
September 1, 2011
Lisa Sharon Harper is director of mobilizing at Sojourners and author of Evangelical Does Not Equal Republican ... or Democrat.
Did anyone else get the feeling, as we watched weather reporters wave their arms frantically in swirling motions across oversized maps of the eastern seaboard -- with their eyes bulging as they pushed out whole paragraphs without a single breath for a period -- that this was all hype?
Last weekend, as Irene passed over town after town in the mid-Atlantic, memories of Katrina did not materialize. By the time Irene huffed over New York City on Sunday morning, and the flood of the century was actually just a really big puddle in Battery Park and a floating lifeguard stand in Long Beach, my fear had transformed into complacency. From there I became cynical. By Sunday afternoon I found myself watching the weatherman's bulging eyes as he repeated the mantra of the day: "It's not as bad as we thought it would be, but it's not over." And I thought: "Boy, they'll do anything for ratings."
But it wasn't all hype.
Hours later, when most of us had turned the TV channel or trekked back to the mall, Irene forsook her name, derived from eirene, the Greek word for "peace." She pounded the riverbeds of upstate New York and Vermont, where whole roads were destroyed, homes were toppled, and communities were thrown into disarray.
Now here's the thing: I've been thinking about how easily my earnest concern transformed into hard-hearted cynicism; it took me less than 24 hours. If it's that easy for me to tune out a monstrous hurricane, how much more tempted am I toward complacency in the face of the churning mass of economic, social, and political hurricanes that are tearing across our entire country right now?
Right now, political parties and the corporations that back them (big oil, big insurance, and big banks) are not only standing in the way of policies that protect the poor; they are also chipping away at the few protections poor and working people depend on. Republicans' new target is the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which works to place limits on the toxic agents corporations spew into our homes, our gardens, our drinking water, and our air.
But Republicans are not alone. Over the last two weeks, 706 people have been arrested in front of the White House protesting the proposed Keystone XL pipeline. The State Department recently released a statement supporting the proposed pipeline, and it is now in Obama's hands to approve or disapprove it. If the pipeline is approved by Obama, it will release Alberta Canada's tar sands, the second largest pool of carbon on earth after the oil fields of Saudi Arabia, into an atmosphere already rife with the effects of global warming. Before Jim Hansen, the world's foremost NASA climate scientist, was arrested on Monday, he stated that if we start tapping these unconventional energy sources, "it is essentially game over for the climate."
Right now, posturing politicians are declaring war on the most basic American protections against abject poverty -- Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. Think Rick Perry. Think the Ryan plan. Think debt-ceiling debacle.
Right now, state-based legislative actions are surpassing the draconian measures dumped on Arizonans in 2010. Alabama recently passed what many hail as "the nation's cruelest immigration law."
Right now, these same forces are mounting campaigns to abolish public schools -- an American invention, created to develop and maintain a robust middle class -- a necessity for any true democracy.
And right now, most of these extremist political maneuvers are being led by people who either identify with the tea party or call themselves tea party sympathizers. Also, in the updated version of American Grace, a study of the tea party revealed that it isn't secular after all. It is actually the Religious Right resurrected in a new set of clothes.
Last week, at Sojourners' National Mobilizing Training Summit, faith-rooted organizing trainer Alexia Salvatierra challenged the group and asked: "How would our organizing change if we believed that God exists?" She was speaking of the God of Moses and Isaiah, the God of Jeremiah and Micah, the God of Amos and Zechariah, the God of Peter on the rooftop and Paul in Antioch, the God of Acts 2, 4, and 6. How would the way we organize against injustice change if we actually believed Jesus meant what he said in Luke 4 and 10, Matthew 5 and 25, John 4 and 19, and Mark 1 and 5?
Even though each of the organizers at the mobilizing training were compelled by their faith to be there, Alexia's question still stuck with us all. She had placed her finger on the one thing that's hard to come by these days -- hope.
I've watched the film Amazing Grace at least five times in the past two months. The people of William Wilberforce's day had every reason to look around at their world and feel despaired. At the time, the slave trade was as pervasive and "normal" as the IT industry is today. Imagine someone declaring that the IT industry must be abolished. That’s how crazy Wilberforce looked in his day. But Wilberforce believed the God of scripture exists. As did Olaudah Equiano, John Newton, John Wesley, Charles Finney, Sojourner Truth, Harriet Beecher Stowe, Fredrick Douglass, John Quincy Adams, Abraham Lincoln, and countless others. As a result, the global sale of human beings is no longer legal.
Edmund Burke said, "All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good [people] to do nothing."
Look around. The forces that come against the poor, creation, and the common good will not win. They cannot win -- because God exists.
Have hope and get moving.hat we are moving the earth,
centimeter by centimeter. As we pray for God's kingdom to come, and
God's will to be done, we wait again for the day that the ground will
shake and everything will change.
When the Earth ShakesAugust 25, 2011
Tim King is communications director at Sojourners. Follow Tim on Twitter @TMKing.
It was over in less than a minute. Three miles below the surface of the earth near a town in Virginia named Mineral, a fault line shifted. As a result, a 5.8 magnitude earthquake was felt from Georgia to New England and as far west as Detroit. The National Cathedral lost several stone spires, the Washington Monument cracked, and Sojourners' office was closed for the afternoon, as our building was checked for structural damage.
Tectonic plates move beneath our feet in the part of the globe that scientists refer to as the lithosphere. Over the course of a year, an average plate will move as little as 3 to 6 centimeters. The speed of their movement is 10,000 times slower than the hour hand on a clock and even slower than the rate of growth of human hair. For decades, sometimes centuries or millennia, a plate's movement might go almost entirely unnoticed. Then, in less than a minute, the world shakes and everything changes.
Over the past few weeks Sojourners' director of mobilizing, Lisa Sharon Harper, has written about social movements for the God's Politics blog. In the midst of what she referred to as our national "dark night of the soul," it can be difficult to see "movement" or feel any hope. Yet, there is still faith and even evidence of things yet unseen. Today, in the Sojourners office we are seeing some of that evidence.
From across the country, over 25 grassroots leaders have come together to learn, pray, train, and plan for movement. Our Mobilizing Summit has brought together a diverse group of leaders who are serving their local communities, while at the same time advocating for the structural change needed for social justice. While sometimes unseen, their work is moving us toward social and political change, centimeter by centimeter. By faith, we believe that this work will bear fruit, and that one day the earth will shake, and, in a moment, the world will change.
Sometimes, our focus is all on the moments when the earth shakes, and we forget about the long, slow movements that get us to these points. It's not always clear that our down payments on the kingdom of God are yielding an immediate return. Even though we are called to be faithful to God's call every day, we do not see results every day.
As Christians, we live in the tension between wanting to respond to the pressing needs of today and wanting to take the long-term view needed to build for the future. It's distressing to see politicians today cut funding for grants that fight human trafficking internationally by almost 24 percent and domestic funding by around 22 percent, while they put their energy and effort behind protecting corporate subsidies and tax loopholes and breaks for the wealthy. This year, these decisions are being made, and as a result of the priorities of our political leaders, women and children who could have been set free, will remain enslaved.
But we also know that on Christian college campuses across the country, students are joining the "Not for Sale" campaign, or joining their local International Justice Mission chapter. While these students may not be setting the priorities of our country today, the choices they make now will result in different priorities in the future. The choice to cast their lot in with the oppressed and the weak, not the rich and powerful, will change their character for a lifetime. It is hard for me to imagine many members of this generation arguing that the preservation of tax cuts for the wealthiest 2 percent of Americans is more important than a national commitment to ending human trafficking.
Every time we take a step to follow Jesus, we become more like him. The changes in our personal or national character may not always be immediately evident. As we find and connect with others who are on this same journey of transformation, we know that we are moving the earth, centimeter by centimeter. As we pray for God's kingdom to come, and God's will to be done, we wait again for the day that the ground will shake and everything will change.
Picture ThisAugust 18, 2011
by Lisa Sharon Harper is director of mobilizing at Sojourners and author of Evangelical Does Not Equal Republican ... or Democrat.
Picture this: Hundreds of thousands of women, men, and children plod across barren cracked earth. Dead cows and human corpses litter the roads, revealing to us evidence of two things: 1) the hottest summer on record in Somalia, which caused the worst drought and famine in 60 years; and 2) twenty years of a truly failed Somali government swallowed up in cycles of violence.
Picture this: Posturing politicians claim to stand up for the rights of Americans, even as they hijack the proverbial steering wheel of America. They hold a proverbial gun to the heads of every American, and say outright that they'd have no problem driving us all off a proverbial cliff if millionaires and billionaires don't remain protected from raised taxes, and if we don't cut more programs that protect working and poor people.
Picture this: One Somali family walks across cracked earth and carcasses for two months in search of food. They outsmart bandits, thugs, and rapists. They sleep wherever they can find safe shelter. They arrive at a refugee camp in eastern Kenya only to find cholera and measles sweeping through the malnourished and immune-suppressed camp.
Picture this: The U.S. House of Representatives votes on a proposed budget for FY2012 that would cut emergency food aid by seventy-five percent compared to FY2008 levels.
Last week, I interviewed Ambassador Tony P. Hall just after he had returned from a trip to the Dadaab refugee camp in eastern Kenya. He told me about his encounter with a family that had walked for two months in order to find food. "I can't get them out of my mind," Ambassador Hall said.
Now picture this: A woman walks into her neighborhood church on the Upper East Side of Manhattan, one of the richest zip codes in the United States. She leans in close to the person working the front desk and whispers, "I have no food."
In an article titled, "Five Myths about Hunger in America," The Washington Post reported the results of the U.S. Department of Agriculture's most recent study on hunger in America. The first myth was, "No one goes hungry in America." As of November 2010, more than 14.7 million American families struggled to put food on the table. This is approximately 15 percent of all U.S. households.
Picture this: When President Obama proposes that Congress close tax loopholes for corporate jet owners, House politicians position themselves as the defenders of corporations, jets, and loopholes.
I strongly believe that neither political party is inherently good or bad, moral or immoral. After all, the Republican Party freed my ancestors and passed the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments to the Constitution, in quick succession in 1865, 1866, and 1869. But what followed was a century long shift in party politics, from the late 1860's to 1965's passage of the Voting Rights Act. Today, we see the evidence of this shift in bass relief.
An LA Times analysis of the debt ceiling deal put this in plain language and stated: "High stakes negotiations force people to reveal what they really care about." The analysis said flatly, Republicans revealed they care most about "preventing any tax increases to upper income families." The Democrats, the article stated, revealed that they care most about "ensuring no cuts to Social Security, Medicaid and a handful of other programs that aid the elderly and the poor."
It doesn't have to be this way. Polls are pleading with politicians to see the stark truth: Both Democrats and Republicans favor tax hikes for the wealthy over cuts in services for the poor. There are far more Americans (both Democrat and Republican) who care more about America's ability to help families, such as the one Ambassador Hall encountered, than about tax breaks for corporate jets. There are far more Americans (both Democrat and Republican) who care more about their hungry neighbors and family members than about protecting Bush era tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires.
It is time for all of us to make our voices heard within both parties. Stand up! Now is the time. If your party won't listen to your words, then speak with your votes.
People around the world are watching the rancor rise as we wade into what promises to be a brutal election season, and they feel helpless… even hopeless. But we are not without hope. We are not without help.
Now picture this: Jesus said, "The spirit of the Lord is upon me, because [the Lord] has anointed me to bring good news to the poor." (Luke 4:18) Jesus followers in both parties, it's time to follow our leader.
Our Dark Night
August 11, 2011
by Lisa Sharon Harper is director of mobilizing at Sojourners and author of Evangelical Does Not Equal Republican ... or Democrat.
They say at some point in their lives great leaders experience a "dark night of the soul," or a period in life when your feet, knees, and face scrape and stick to the proverbial bottom. It is a time when even your soul feels forsaken. Ultimately, the dark night is not about the suffering that is inflicted from outside oneself, even though that could trigger it. It is about the existential suffering rooted from within. St. John of the Cross, the 16th century Carmelite priest, described it as a confrontation, or a healing and process of purification of what lies within on the journey toward union with God.
"Whenever you face trials of any kind," explains the apostle James, "consider it nothing but joy, because you know that the testing of your faith produces endurance; and let endurance have its full effect, so that you may be mature and complete, lacking in nothing." (James 1:2-4)
Evangelical leadership guru, Dr. J. Robert Clinton, says the dark night is a key experience God initiates in the lives of leaders for the building of faith and strength of character. Many have waxed poetic about whether President Obama has experienced his own dark night. Others have wondered if perhaps the events of the last few days, or the last two years, might be moving his soul toward the blessed struggle. But these reflections are not about our president: They are about us -- they are about our nation.
On Thursday, August 4, the day after "Debt Ceiling D-day," the Dow Jones industrial average fell 500 points. On Friday, August 5, Standard & Poor's downgraded the United States' credit rating from AAA to AA+. By the closing bell on Monday, August 8, the Dow Jones industrial average had fallen another 634 points. The markets rallied on Tuesday and closed 430 points up, then fell again on Wednesday, closing 520 points down. This market struggle, after weeks of wrangling over the debt ceiling, has left me wondering if God might be moving us into a national dark night.
We are a nation woven together by eclectic threads of common faith in the truth that all people are created equal. Again and again, our darkest hours have come when elements within our own national body have tested this faith. They espoused and lived according to one basic lie: People are not equal; some are inherently worth more than others. In America's darkest hours, social movements rose up and called us to face down the lies and embrace God's truth.
Abolitionists called Americans to understand that no matter how dependent our economy is on the free labor of other human beings, slaves are human beings -- walking images of God in our midst -- and they should be free.
Suffragists called us to see that the world would not end if the traditional order of society was reformed to acknowledge women's spiritual need for, and equal right to, self-sovereignty -- a right most powerfully demonstrated in the right to vote.
Labor unionists reminded us of the spiritual truth that profits are not more important than people. Working people to the bone over 12-hour days, for pennies on the dollar, under oppressive work conditions exploits the image of God in our midst. In fact, work was given to us in the garden of Eden (paradise). It should bless humanity -- not curse it.
And, finally, Civil Rights workers called America back to the root of the root: Some of us are not more valuable than others. We are all made in the image of God, and as such we are all worthy of equal protection under the law.
All of these American movements were spearheaded by people of faith. Their faith in God -- in the truth of scripture, and in the example of Jesus' life -- led them to do as Nehemiah did; to lament the lies distorting our national body, to take responsibility for our complicity in them, and to forsake them.
What is the lie today? How's this? "Some people have to be sacrificed on the altar of economic health." Sounds reasonable, huh? In the midst of dire times, dire measures must be taken to get our economic health back on track. Yes, this does sound reasonable, but it's a lie.
Dire times do warrant dire measures, but here's the trillion dollar question: Will we cut, cap, and balance our investment in the Afghanistan and Iraq wars, which will make up more than 50 percent of our nation's deficit by the year 2019? Or will we cut food stamps from the hands of the vulnerable, cap protections against toxins in our water supplies, and allow imbalance that favors the super-rich to go unchecked in our tax structure?
I believe God is leading our generation into its own dark night. We have a choice. We can pretend all is well, and continue to look lies in the face and call them truth. Or we can do as Nehemiah did; lament the lie, and then forsake it.
The Moral Default
August 4, 2011
The debate we have just
witnessed has shown Washington, D.C. to be not just broken, but
corrupt. The American people are disgusted watching politicians play
political chicken with the nation's economy and future. In such a
bitter and unprincipled atmosphere, whoever has the political clout to
enforce their self-interest and retain their privileges wins the
battles. But there are two casualties in such political warfare: the
common good and the most vulnerable.
So how will vulnerable people fare under this deal? "The Circle of
Protection," a diverse nonpartisan movement of Christian leaders, has
been deeply engaged in the budget debate to uphold the principle that
low-income people should be protected. But it is hard to evaluate a
deal that averts a crisis when the crisis wasn't necessary in the first
place. Over the past few weeks, our economy has indeed been held
hostage as politicians negotiated the price of the release. Ultimately,
I think most of us wish that no hostages had been taken in the first
place, and this was no way to run a government or make important budget
decisions.
The deal just passed by the House and Senate raises the debt ceiling
with enough room that the issue won't have to be revisited until 2013.
The first phase is a set of agreed-upon cuts of nearly $1 trillion over
the next 10 years. The second phase sets up a committee of legislators
that is tasked with finding another $1.5 trillion in cuts over the same
time period. If the committee fails to come up with a deal, then a
"trigger" is pulled and automatic cuts are enacted. These triggered
cuts are designed to be distasteful enough that, in theory, both sides
will stay at the table until they have an agreement.
It appears that the voice of the faith community was at least heard and
made some difference in the outcome of the default debate. We met with
the president and Democratic leaders Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi, and
all of them fought to defend low-income people as we asked them to do.
The White House protected low-income entitlement programs from
automatic cuts in the "trigger" and successfully defended Medicaid. We
also pleaded for low-income people in meetings with Republican Paul
Ryan and with the staffs of John Boehner and Mitch McConnell. They told
us they agreed with the principle but did not uphold it in their final
proposals. We hope and pray that the protestations of the faith
community will work on the hearts of both Republicans and Democrats as
the details of this plan are worked out.
Genuinely reforming federal programs, including entitlements, with a
special eye to protect the most vulnerable, is something the faith
community has supported, but slashing programs for the poor while
exempting the rich from sacrifice is repugnant to our spiritual values
and contrary to scripture. This plan could still go either way.
The most glaring problem with the deal is that it doesn't, at this
point, include revenues. There is no balancing between spending cuts
and tax increases, and this deal, so far, falls completely on the side
of spending cuts. It is possible that revenues will be revisited in the
new super committee, but given the insistence of a cuts-only approach
by the Republican leaders, it is not clear how likely a more balanced
approach will be.
Corporate tax loopholes for the very rich were protected, while the
core safety net for the most vulnerable is still in great jeopardy. The
private jet industry mobilized to protect its tax deductions; the most
profitable oil companies in the country will continue to get their
public money for offshore drilling subsidies. But programs like WIC and
SNAP -- providing critical nutrition help for low-income mothers and
their kids -- and malaria bed nets and vaccinations for children in
Africa are threatened. If the wealthy are not asked to share in the
sacrifice, then cuts will undoubtedly come from those who can least
afford it. But if sacrifice is shared, we can both reduce the deficit
and reduce poverty as our country has done before.
We heard from those inside the negotiations that the voice of the faith
community was heard -- your voice mattered. The 18,202 people across
the country who joined the "Circle of Protection" have shown that poor
people do have a constituency looking out for them -- and that's what
matters in these debates, according to the people involved in them.
This national debate about our priorities and, indeed, our character,
is far from over. When all is said and done in any final deal, the
faith community will be watching to see if the most vulnerable are
being protected or savaged for the financial sins of the rest of us. If
low-income people are not exempted from deficit reduction, the result
will be a fundamental moral default. With your help, we will continue
to remind our legislators to remember that God is watching them too.
God is Watching
July 28, 2011
The markets are watching, the Republicans are watching, the Democrats are watching, the media are watching, the pollsters and pundits are watching. The public is watching and is disgusted with Washington, D.C.
When it comes to the bitter and ultra-partisan battles over the budget, the deficit, and the fast-approaching deadline for America to avoid defaulting on its financial commitments, the whole nation and even the world is watching.
But God is watching too.
Others are watching to see how their self-interests will benefit in the final deal. Or they are watching to see who's up and who's down, who will get the political win, and whose election chances will be better afterward.
Forty-eight hours after President Obama mentioned corporate jet tax deductions, and suggested they might not be as important as scholarships for low-income kids going to college for the first time, a headline appeared in the New York Times reading, "Industry Set for Fight to Keep Corporate Jet Tax Breaks." Wow. That was pretty fast. The ones who will win the current battle over the budget and deficit are the ones who are watching. As the book of Proverbs teaches, the poor are shunned, but the rich have many friends.
Agribusiness is ready to respond if anyone challenges the subsidies that go to millionaire "farmers" living in Manhattan. The oil and gas industry reacts to questions about whether $2.5 billion in offshore drilling subsidies might be less needed than $2.5 billion slated to be cut in home heating oil assistance for low-income families. The Pentagon is watching and ready to invoke national security interests, or question the patriotism of anyone daring to cut its budget. A bipartisan commission came up with $1 trillion in military cuts over the next 10 years that wouldn't hurt our national security, but it is unlikely that more than a fraction of their recommendations will ever be taken.
Republicans are watching and are ready to push the nation even closer to the brink of default if anyone suggests that revenue from the wealthy be a part of the solution. Democrats are watching, but, with a few notable exceptions, they don't say the word "poor" out loud anymore. Anyone who could end up paying more in taxes is watching, even though taxes as a percentage of GDP dropped from 20 percent in 2000 to just over 14 percent in 2010. The average effective tax rate for the wealthiest is now only 17 percent of their income, and many corporations do not pay any taxes at all.
At the same time, nutrition programs for low-income mothers and children are at risk of being cut, as well as children's health programs, education for low-income students, early childhood development, and the most effective initiatives in the world, which are dramatically reducing both disease and hunger. These programs are at the risk of being cut because nobody has been watching out for them.
But the religious community is changing this: It formed "A Circle of Protection" to defend the most effective anti-poverty efforts both at home and around the world. Today, Sojourners has a full-page ad in Politico with the message "God Is Watching" as a part of our series of print ads on the budget. This week our radio ads, recorded by local pastors, are playing in Nevada, Kentucky, and Ohio to remind politicians of the moral issues at stake. Faith leaders say God is biased in such matters, and prefers to protect the poor instead of the rich, and instructs the faithful to do the same. This is class warfare now, and when it breaks out, the Bible suggests that God is on the side of defending the poor from assault.
In the past, our country has successfully reduced deficits and poverty at the same time. There were bipartisan agreements to defend the means-tested programs for low-income people against cuts. And for the past 25 years, every automatic budget cut mechanism has exempted core low-income assistance programs. But not this time. Neither the Republican House, the Democratic Senate, nor the Obama White House has clearly and publicly committed to protect the poor and vulnerable, even though religious leaders have persistently pressed them all to do so. It's a moral imperative that we do so again today. So now, faith leaders are watching the political leaders. And we believe God is watching us all.
Matthew 25 -- Why We Went to the White HouseJuly 21, 2011
Today is another intense day of politics at the White House. The debt default deadline is fast approaching. The stakes for the nation are high as politicians can't agree on how to resolve the ideological impasse on how to reduce the deficit before the nation defaults on its financial obligations.
Yesterday, before congressional leaders were due at the White House for critical negotiations, I, along with 11 other national faith leaders, met with President Obama and senior White House staff for 40 minutes. We were representing the Circle of Protection, which formed in a commitment to defend the poor in the budget debates. Sitting in the Roosevelt Room of the White House, we opened in prayer, grasping hands across the table, and read scripture together. We reminded ourselves that people of faith must evaluate big decisions on issues like a budget by how they impact the most vulnerable.
We urged the president to protect programs for low-income people in the ongoing budget and deficit debate, and in any deal concerning the debt ceiling and default crisis. In an engaging back and forth conversation, the president and faith leaders discussed how we can get our fiscal house in order without doing so on the backs of those who are most vulnerable. We shared the concern that the deficit must be cut in a way that protects the safety net, and struggling families and children, and maintains our national investments in the future of all of us.
The meeting started with the recognition that the poor and vulnerable are at great risk in this debate. But we told the president some good news about how a Circle of Protection has formed in response to this crisis. It is now the most unified and broadest coalition of churches that any of us has ever seen -- and is endorsed by our brothers and sisters of other faiths and secular organizations who also work for low-income people.
We made our simple principle clear: The most vulnerable should be protected in any budget or deficit agreements -- as a non-partisan commitment. The most vulnerable need a special exemption from all spending cuts as they usually have had in previous times of deficit reduction. We told President Obama that this is what God requires of all of us.
We agreed that we need both fiscal responsibility and shared sacrifice. Those already hurting should not be made to hurt more, and those doing well should do their part in sacrificing. And whatever we decide should be fair, balanced, and compassionate. President Obama agreed that the sacrifices needed to reduce the deficit must not be borne by the "least of these." It was good to hear a reference to Matthew 25 and Jesus' words, "As you have done to the least of these, you have done to me," in the White House. This verse motivated many of us to be at the White House meeting yesterday, and it continues to serve as a guiding principle for how we make critical decisions, including the one the nation is about to make. (Also, watch my discussion of Matthew 25 on today's Morning Joe.)
The Christian leaders at yesterday's meeting included representatives from the National Association of Evangelicals, the National Council of Churches, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, Bread for the World, Sojourners, the Alliance to End Hunger, the Salvation Army, the National African American Clergy Network, the National Baptist Convention of America, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, and the National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference.
The Circle of Protection statement has been signed by more than 60 heads of Christian denominations and religious organizations, and is endorsed by 45 heads of development agencies as well as leaders of other faiths. The Circle of Protection movement has worked to uphold the bipartisan consensus that has long prevailed in deficit-reduction agreements -- that programs serving poor and hungry people should be protected and exempted from any budget cuts.
Circle of Protection leaders have met with both Democratic and Republicans in Congress, and they have requested meetings with House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY).
Our goal is simply this: Whenever a new budget or deficit reduction proposal is put forth, somebody should ask how it will impact the poorest and most vulnerable. This is a biblical question, a fair question, and a question of justice.
Will Politicians Listen to Pastors?July 14, 2011
The way you think and feel about the world is shaped by what you see when you get out of bed in the morning. I remember hearing this from civil rights activists. It simply means that perspective is hugely determined by place, context, and vantage point. This is profoundly true for me and most of the people I've ever met. You see the world from the place you live.
Part of the problem in the current budget impasse in Washington, D.C. is the perspectives of the politicians in the debate. Every morning they see and hear each other; the gladiator ring of national politics; the Washington media; their donors; their ideological base; and their latest poll ratings. Sure enough, the perspective that dominates politicians of both parties on the budget is who's up and who's down; whose power is growing or diminishing; whose constituents and donors are better organized and get their interests in front of the lawmakers; what the pollsters say; and how the end result of the debate will impact electoral gains. This perspective also dominates the news coverage.
So we at Sojourners thought there needed to be another perspective in this debate, and that the nation needed other voices. We need to hear from people who see and hear something different from politicians when they get up in the morning -- real people who are struggling, some of whom are poor, families, children, and the elderly, and maybe people whose job forces them to have to read the Bible.
I'm talking about local pastors. Every day, pastors relate with the people in their congregations and communities. Pastors can't avoid the real world, which is so easy to do in Washington, D.C.
We wondered, what do pastors think about the budget debate? We decided to go to them and ask them to speak out, and now they have. "An Open Letter to Congress and the President" was initiated by a group of pastors two weeks ago and sent out to their colleagues. Their letter talked about the real people who will be most impacted by this debate, and that any budget deal should be evaluated by how it affects the poorest and most vulnerable. God requires this of us, they asserted. We decided to try for 1,000 signatures from local pastors -- in July, when so many people are away, when things are shutting down for the summer, when it's hardest to get a response on anything. It was an act of faith. So far, in two weeks, 4,700 pastors have responded and made their voices clear. A full page ad titled, "Listen to Your Pastors" appeared in Politico yesterday. A copy of the ad with a full list of signers is here. You can also listen to a press call I moderated on Wednesday featuring Rev. Rich Nathan, Rev. Nadia Bolz-Weber, and Rev. Derrick Harkins.
"The recession has cost hundreds of our church members' jobs and homes," said Rev. Rich Nathan, senior pastor of the Vineyard Church of Columbus in Columbus, Ohio. "But I am concerned about something that has even more devastating consequences for our nation: the adoption of a philosophy that says, 'I got mine! You're on your own!' Jesus had an infinitely wiser philosophy for building a flourishing society: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' This is as meaningful in today's budget debates as it was two thousand years ago in ancient Israel."
Growing numbers of Christians are condemning the immorality of extending tax breaks and benefits for the wealthy, while programs that help the poor and vulnerable meet their most basic needs are being cut. The clergy signers of the letter told political leaders, "We work, pray, and do whatever we can to remain faithful to the responsibility of every Christian to help the poor. Still, we can't meet the crushing needs by ourselves." They reminded Congress that government is a critical and necessary partner in serving the common good.
Rev. Nadia Bolz-Weber, founding pastor of House for All Sinners and Saints in Denver, Colorado, was also a recipient of a program that could be cut. "As a member of the clergy and a mother of two children with strong minds and bodies -- which benefited for three years from WIC [the Women, Infants, and Children program] -- I stand with all Christians in America who believe the cries of the poor and the cries of the children are not only the very voice of Christ, but are indeed the sound of our future waiting for response," Rev. Bolz-Weber said. "How shall we answer?"
In their letter, the clergy rejected the false choice between moral and fiscal responsibility, and reminded political leaders of the need to get our country's finances in order without making the poor bear the burden of deficit reduction. "This is not about some nameless, faceless 'other.' The choices politicians make about the budget will harm or help our neighbors," said Rev. Derrick Harkins, senior pastor of the Nineteenth Street Baptist Church in Washington, D.C. "We want to serve those who don't have lobbyists on K Street. Our budget is a moral document, and it is either going to reflect the best of who we are, or the worst.”
Christian opposition to budgets cuts that harm low-income people continues to grow. In May, more than 50 of America's most prominent Christian leaders formed a "Circle of Protection" coalition that laid out principles and values for a moral budget. Thousands of people of faith have since joined this campaign.
Our country is in the midst of a clash between two competing moral visions, between those who believe in the common good, and those who believe individual good is the only good. A war has been declared on the poor, and it is a moral imperative that people of faith and conscience fight on the side of the most vulnerable. Pastors have spoken up. Will the lawmakers listen to their pastors? This may be the only hope we have as we grimace in listening to reports of their budget debates. Hoping the politicians listen to their pastors is also an act of faith in July. But you never know. The Debt Ceiling Play: My 'CliffsNotes' Version
July 7, 2011
Our country is in the midst of a clash between two competing moral visions. It is not, as we have known in recent history, a traditional fight between Republicans and Democrats. It is a conflict between those who believe in the common good and those who believe individual good is the only good. While a biblical worldview informs Christians that they should be wary of the rich and defend the poor, a competing ideology says that wealth is equivalent to righteousness and God’s blessing. It is a morality play in which Washington, D.C. is the stage, politicians are actors, lobbyists are directors, the "debt ceiling" is the conflict, and we are the audience who will pay the cost of the production, whether we enjoyed it or not.
All the actors know that the scene will end with the debt ceiling raised, but now the question is, who will pay the price?
To help you follow the play, here is my "CliffsNotes" version:
1. The United States has the best credit rating in the world, for now. For years the safest investment in the world has been buying U.S. debt. But there is a legal limit on how much we can borrow, and we are about to max out. What’s driving our deficits? If you look at the drivers of the budget deficit from 2009 to 2019, you’ll see that there is a sharp increase from recovery measures for a few years. But by 2019, more than half of the deficit will be from the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and the tax cuts enacted under President Bush and extended under President Obama.
2. What had been a routine procedure is now center stage. Unless you were paying very close attention, you probably didn’t hear about the seven times the debt ceiling was raised under President Bush and 17 times under President Reagan. But don’t think using the debt ceiling as a partisan tool is anything new. These votes often fall along partisan lines, and President [then Senator] Obama voted against raising the debt ceiling under President Bush.
3. Yes, a default would be disastrous. None of the main characters is even considering it. It could set off a row of economic dominoes that could result in more than 600,000 jobs lost, a lot more debt than we have right now, and at a significantly higher interest rate. President Reagan put it like this: “Congress consistently brings the government to the edge of default before facing its responsibility. This brinksmanship threatens the holders of government bonds and those who rely on Social Security and veterans benefits. Interest rates would skyrocket, instability would occur in financial markets, and the Federal deficit would soar.” Not raising the federal debt limit isn't like cutting up your credit card. It's like cutting up your credit card bill. We have a long-term spending problem, but that doesn't mean we can stick our heads in the sand. And the most serious economists, from both parties, say that spending cuts alone cannot solve our deficit problem. Part of the solution has to be increasing revenues. Tax revenues are the lowest they have been in recent history. In 1980, federal revenue was around 19 percent of the GDP; in 1990 it was a little over 18 percent; in 2000 it was over 20 percent; and in 2010 it was just over 14 percent of GDP. Taxes, especially on the wealthy, are relatively low (historically and internationally) and need to be raised.
4. It looks like everyone is about to lose their balance. Some analysts thought a fair approach to facing our debt would be to cut spending $1 for every $1 in revenue raised. The Simpson-Bowles deficit reduction plan the promoted a 3-to-1 ratio of spending cuts to revenue, and then the president offered a plan in the same ballpark. Now it is being reported that Republicans aren’t interested in a deal that would give a 5-to-1 spending cuts-to-revenue ratio. It’s possible that they will refuse any revenue increases, including closing corporate tax loopholes and subsidies that allow some corporations to pay no taxes at all.
This play would be amusing to watch if it was just on a stage. Instead, these decisions will have real-world consequences. Should we end farm subsidy checks to millionaires in Manhattan, or baby formula rebates for new mothers? Should we end mortgage deductions for second homes, or house the homeless? Should we end a military tank program that no longer has use, or stop providing malaria bed nets for children?
The actors who are center-stage right now would have the audience believe that it is all much more complicated than that. The directors behind the scenes would like us to stay out of the way of the plot and leave it to them. But as a Christian, I can’t sit quietly by while the audience of the poor watch silently and suffer.
My Other Calling? Coaching Jack and Luke
June 30, 2011
My iPhone died and I didn't even care. A cooler full of water and ice was dumped on my head, which soaked not only me, but also my phone. My older son Luke's Little League team, called the Nationals, had just won the Majors championship in Northwest Little League, and the boys were very excited and eager to douse their coach -- just like on TV. I was so happy for them that I really didn't care about the soaked iPhone!
I coach both of my sons' baseball teams. Luke's team was undefeated in the AA League (the younger kid's division where I now coach his 8-year-old brother Jack). Then we won the AAA championship two years ago, and now the Majors, which is the division for the oldest kids in Little League. When I was asked by other coaches what my secret was in sweeping all three Little League divisions, I pondered the questions thoughtfully and then gave them an honest answer: My secret is having a son who hits in most of your runs and then pitches no-run innings against the other team!
I played baseball as a kid too, until I was about 16, but Luke has already gone way beyond what I ever did, and he is still just 12. He now has "real" coaches (not just his Dad) on both his travel team and his middle school team. He hears the other voices he needs with great instruction from serious young men who actually played serious baseball -- some through college. Having coached him since he was 5 years old, Luke is now on track to play high school and maybe even college baseball. That's what he has always wanted, even as a little boy, so I have done my job. Luke sometimes still fantasizes about Major League Baseball, like most kids his age who play, but he is realistic enough to know that it is unlikely for even the best kids at his level. He is also thinking about the other things he would like to do that "have a better chance of changing the world than being a professional baseball player," as he puts it.
But even more than just watching my talented son play baseball, I have just loved coaching him for all these years. It has been a father-son bond that will always be with us. For days after the game, Luke would come up to me with a big grin on his face, give me a fist bump or a high five, and quietly say, "We did it, Dad." Coaching also enabled me to get to know all his teammates and their families, and the kids on other teams -- his best friends in the world. When I come home and walk into our family room to a bunch of guys watching a game and say, "Hi guys," one says back, "Hi Dad," and the rest reply, "Hi Coach." This has been a great experience. Our house has always been the team club house, and I'm sure other parents can understand how great this is for us.
Though we have always had winning teams, we have never stressed winning as the primary goal or made competition our driving energy. I've always had just three simple rules on our teams: to have fun, which after all should be the whole point of Little League for kids; to always be good teammates (there is no negative talk allowed from players, parents, or coaches); and to learn to love the game of baseball while becoming better ball players. But these principles seem to have produced winning teams for us. We all make mistakes, including the coach, but when we do, there is always "next time." And we all learn to love this game, even the families, who become a little community for the season, and even beyond. The friendships that are created continue past baseball.
I know baseball well enough to teach and coach the kids, but the skills have never been my strength as a coach. Rather, I bring the qualities from the rest of my life as a speaker, preacher, and pastor to my Little League team. I try to inspire, encourage, support, and guide the kids in ways that will work, not only for baseball, but also for the rest of their lives. Their parents often smile and comment on my continual narrative from the sidelines. When I gather the players around me in a team circle, their parents say that I am teaching them "the lessons of life." At the beginning of our championship game I gave the kids a little talk (of course!) and predicted who would win the game. "Who?" they demanded to know. "Whoever is the most focused today; whoever doesn't let bad calls bother them but just keeps going; whoever is most supportive of their teammates even when they make mistakes; whoever digs deep inside and offers their very best today and leaves everything on the field," I replied. They won a close one, 4-2.
Of course, I feel a sense of joy and even pride when Luke hits another towering homerun, or gets the biggest hit in the All Star game, or pitches the lights out and shuts down the other team's batting, or makes a great pick at first base, or is catching at home. And I try not to act too excited as the Dad/coach. But honestly, the deeper delight often comes from the kid whose nervous face is replaced with a big smile when he finally learns to connect with the ball, or from the one who, after making lots of errors all season, ends up making the game-winning play in the field and gets the game ball, or from the parents who tell you long after the season is over that whenever their child is facing touch challenges in school and life, he is encouraged when they remind him to "believe in yourself, just like Coach Jim believed in you." Most coaches will tell you that helping the kids who struggle more with the game is often the most satisfying accomplishment.
Now that Luke has aged out of Little League, I'm done coaching his team. From now on, as I watch his baseball career unfold, I will just be a Dad and fan. This summer Luke is on the Northwest Little League 12U World Series team. They will enter the tournament that will take the top teams to Williamsport -- the tournament that is on television every August and that our family has watched for years. This is Luke's year for that and our family will follow the team as far as they can go. My younger son Jack has made the 8U traveling team this summer too, and my coaching will now focus just on him. We are both very excited.
This July 4 weekend is the annual DC "Stars and Strikes" tournament, and both our boys will be playing -- in different divisions and on different fields. Joy and I will drive back and forth between fields, making good on the sign she put out in front of our home when the spring began, "We interrupt this family for baseball season." I build my schedule now, including my travel, around Little League baseball. Coaching has been an anchor for me, a deep connection to my sons, and a critical balance to the rest of my life.
And guess what? The iPhone dried out and is working just fine!
The War Must Not Go On!
June 23, 2011
Last evening, President
Obama made his long-awaited announcement on beginning withdrawal of the
103,000 U.S. troops from Afghanistan. The president announced that
10,000 of these troops will be withdrawn by the end of this year,
starting in July, and 23,000 more by the end of summer 2012. That will
leave approximately 70,000 troops in Afghanistan, roughly double the
number of troops (34,000) when he took office in 2008. The president
said these remaining troops will be withdrawn “at a steady pace” going
into 2014.
But that’s not good enough.
President Obama had an opportunity to pivot his policy on the war in
Afghanistan -- to focus on the still real threats of terrorism, rather
than on failed wars of occupation with massive numbers of troops on the
ground. Public opinion polls now consistently show that 50 to 60
percent of the American people want the troops to come home.
Two-hundred-four members of the House, from both parties, voted in late
May for the McGovern-Jones amendment -- which calls for an accelerated
withdrawal and a responsible exit from Afghanistan. Two members of
Congress, Jim McGovern and Walter Jones, one Democrat and one
Republican, were the authors of that measure and have been the real
leaders of political and moral conscience on this war. Twenty-eight
bipartisan senators also called for an accelerated withdrawal in a
recent letter to the president. A wide array of political leaders, from
both parties -- including senators Carl Levin, Max Baucus, and Richard
Lugar, and Republican presidential candidates Jon Huntsman, Mitt
Romney, and Ron Paul -- are expressing reservations about the war
strategy. Obama could have built on these changes in public opinion and
announced a dramatic change in war policy for Afghanistan. But last
night, he did not.
We constantly hear the message, “Support
the troops.” It’s on bumper stickers, at ball games, and on banners in
airports. As a Christian who opposed the two wars our troops have been
fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq, I can say that I do support the
troops. They are primarily young, from lower-income and working
families, who in the current economy have few other options. The
military promised them the opportunity for a job, training, and perhaps
the chance go to college on their return. But that promise to young
people with few other options came at a high price. So far, 1,552
Americans have died in the war in Afghanistan; 11,200 have been
wounded. In one study of the 300,000 returning veterans from Iraq and
Afghanistan who sought help from Veterans Affairs health centers,
nearly 37 percent of those treated for the first time were suffering
from mental health problems such as post-traumatic stress disorder,
depression, or alcohol problems. These problems too often result in
suicide. During the first half of 2009, more American soldiers
committed suicide than were killed in combat in Afghanistan and Iraq.
In June 2010, an average of one soldier a day committed suicide.
Furthermore, 11 percent of Iraq and Afghanistan veterans are
unemployed.
Of course, there are very few children of members
of Congress, or of finance and business executives, in the military.
Those who run the country are not sending their children to fight the
wars they continue to prolong. Frankly, war is good business for those
who run the military-industrial complex that former President
Eisenhower warned us about. Generals always recommend more war because
it’s their business. It gets them promotions and advances their
careers. And they often distort the facts to stay in business --
claiming progress in order to justify continued war -- when there
really is no significant progress at all. Meanwhile, more young people
get killed or damaged for the rest of their lives, and the cost for so
many innocents is even higher. That can simply no longer be justified
in Afghanistan.
The president acknowledged and honored the
sacrifice of the troops, and said we need to shift from nation-building
in Afghanistan to nation-building at home. But the meager reduction of
troops he announced last night simply doesn’t support either goal. I
heard on Morning Joe this morning that John McCain has more staff on
Capitol Hill than the CIA reports al Qaeda now has in Afghanistan. And
the threat of Bin Laden was not ended by the war in Afghanistan, but by
focused intelligence and counter-terrorism in Pakistan. Yet, after the
president’s announcement last night, the United States will still have
nearly 100,000 troops in Afghanistan for the rest of this year, and
will spend more than $100 billion in the coming year. It seems the war
in Afghanistan will go on and on and on.
To truly support the
troops who are fighting and dying in Afghanistan, we must commit our
resources where they are most needed. We must make the courageous
decision to end the war in Afghanistan much faster than the president
called for last night. Incremental and gradual drawdowns of troops over
many years is not the correct response to a failed war. We needed a
pivot to a new policy last night -- but we didn’t get it.
The
president’s decision to finish his first term with twice as many U.S.
troops in Afghanistan as when he took office is a political and moral
mistake. This week, nearly 40 religious leaders delivered a letter to
the White House saying “we are united in the belief that it is time to
bring the U.S. war in Afghanistan to an end.” We must now build on that
to mobilize resistance to the war across the religious community. It’s
time for the faith community to help lead the movement that will bring
this unnecessary and unjust war to an end. The president’s message last
night was “the war goes on.” Our message on Afghanistan must be: War No More.
Wanted: 1,000 Pastors for the Poor
June 16, 2011
We are looking for 1,000
pastors to debunk a myth based on the political assertion that
government doesn't have any responsibility to poor people. The myth is
that churches and charities alone could take care of the problems of
poverty -- especially if we slashed people's taxes. Both this assertion
and myth contradict the biblical imperative to hold societies and
rulers responsible for how they treat the poor, and ignore the
Christian tradition of holding governments accountable to those in
need. Faith-based organizations and government have had effective and
healthy partnerships, and ultimately, the assertion and myth have more
to do with libertarian political ideology, than good theology.This
is why six pastors recently launched an "Open Letter from 1,000
Pastors" to let our political leaders know this isn't true. (Pastors can click here to join them.)
These pastors believe that churches must provide strong leadership in
responding to poverty, and they are doing so, but the government also
has responsibilities -- vital ones. The letter reads:
We are local pastors.
Our lives are committed to our churches and communities ... We work,
pray, and do whatever we can to remain faithful to the responsibility
of every Christian to help the poor. Still, we can't meet the crushing
needs by ourselves. We do our best to feed the hungry, but charitable
nutrition programs only make up 6% of total feeding programs in the
country while the government makes up 94% ...
We have seen this
support allow young people to be the first members of their families to
get college degrees, ensure mothers can feed their children a healthy
diet, enable those with disabilities to live fulfilling lives, give
much-needed medical care to those who can't afford it, support seniors,
provide housing for families, and help people in finding a job.
… There is more need today than Churches can meet by themselves. This is why we join in the "Circle of Protection."
One proposal being
considered in Congress this week is a $833 million cut from the Women,
Infants, and Children (WIC) program. If you do the math, this cut is
less than the revenue lost from just one week of the tax cuts that were
recently extended for millionaires alone. According to a Children's
Health Watch study, economists estimate that "every $1 invested in WIC
saves between $1.77 and $3.13 in health-care costs in the first 60 days
after an infant’s birth" by reducing the instance of low birth weight
babies and improving child immunization rates. And, "The program has
the highest rating possible from the U.S. Office of Management and
Budget's Program Assessment Rating Tool." Christians who consider
themselves pro-life only need to know one thing: It is estimated that
the WIC program has saved more than 200,000 babies from dying at birth.
The local pastors who
are signing this letter are close enough to the problems of poverty to
really know what some of these vital programs mean for the poorest and
vulnerable people. They also know that anyone who says churches can do
it all is simply not close enough to the poor to know the magnitude of
the need, especially in tough economic times like today where poverty
is on the rise again.Important decisions about the federal
budget will be made in the next few weeks. The voices and actions by
all of you have already made a big impact in Washington, but more work
is needed. If you are a pastor, please sign the "Open Letter from 1,000 Pastors."
Pastors need to squash the rumor that only churches and charities have
a responsibility to the poor. This rumor is both bad theology and bad
public policy. If you aren't a pastor, forward this email to your
pastor or sign on to the Circle of Protection yourself.There
is great need in this country, and it is growing -- needs that are not
being met. Individuals and churches, who are themselves experiencing
tough times, still need to be more generous and compassionate than
ever. But churches are also called to prophetic action -- to challenge
public policies that continue to reward the wealthy and target the poor
with painful cuts. So, it's time to affirm public-private partnerships
that work, and not abandon our public responsibility to the poor.
Pentecost: The Coming of the Wild Goose
June 9, 2011
This Sunday is Pentecost.
For 50 days, a group of 120 followers of Jesus waited. Their teacher,
for whom they had left all they had, was now gone. Judas, one of their
own, betrayed their master and then killed himself. The comforter they
had been promised had not yet come. They picked Mathias as a
replacement for Judas. And then they waited.
I have to speculate
sometimes at the conversations that occurred during those 50 days from
Easter until Pentecost. There were, I am sure, some nervous exchanges.
Jesus had appeared to them: he had offered Thomas an opportunity to
place his hands into his wounds; he had eaten fish with his disciples
by the shore. But where was this promised comforter who would be with
them always?
Pentecost is a part of the Christian calendar today,
but for the disciples, it was the Feast of Shavuot, or the "Feast of
Oaths." It was a festival remembering the covenants God made with Noah
after the flood, Abraham and the Israelites about a new homeland, and
Moses on Mt. Sinai. It was a time to remember God's faithfulness.
When
I read Acts 2 and imagine the room filled with the small band of
believers, a sound "like the rush of a violent wind" and tongues "as of
fire" resting above each of their heads, my faith is encouraged. I am
reminded that there are greater things at work in this world than what
is at first visible. There is power and strength in the Spirit that God
sent to the church. While there had only been 120 gathered in that
room, 3,000 were added to their number that day.
While much of
my work revolves around challenging unjust systems and structures, I do
not doubt that the world we see around us of broken people and
institutions is only a small portion of what is real. The Spirit of God
extends wider and deeper and is at work in my life, the lives of
others, and in the communities and institutions of this world. While I
work for societal transformation, I try to stay rooted in the
transforming work that the Spirit is constantly doing in me.
Too
often, it feels like we need to make a choice between the work of this
world, and the work of the Spirit, or between a personal focus, or a
social focus of the gospel. "Either/or" marks how some churches present
the Christian faith. Often, however, this is a false dichotomy. Early
in the days of the Sojourners community I remember that one of our
favorite words was "and." We would talk about personal salvation and
social justice, prayer and peacemaking, faith and action, belief and
obedience, salvation and discipleship, worship and politics, spiritual
transformation and social transformation. These were things that
complemented one another and deepened each other instead of being in
opposition.
In two weeks, my family and I will be headed down to
Shakori Hills, North Carolina for the Wild Goose Festival. In the
Celtic Church, the symbol for the Holy Spirit is a wild goose -- wild,
free, and untamed. The festival will be a weekend of justice,
spirituality, music, and the arts. It is an "and" kind of space, more
than an "either/or." It will, no doubt, be a busy weekend. But I am
looking forward to it, not just for the activities, but for the
reminder that it is by chasing after the wild goose, the Holy Spirit's
movement, that we see ourselves, and our world, transformed.
The Top 3 Signs This War Will End
June 2, 2011
One of the amazing things about scripture is that, even after thousands of years, it continues to inspire. Many scholars believe that the prophet Isaiah lived in the 8th century B.C.E. Nearly 3,000 years later, his words in Isaiah 2:4 still give me hope.
"[The Lord] shall judge between the nations, and shall arbitrate for many peoples; they shall beat their swords into ploughshares, and their spears into pruning-hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more. (Isaiah 2:4)"
While this day that Isaiah describes might still be a long way off, our work for peace is not in vain. In the past few months, I have seen some hopeful signs that we are getting ready to turn at least some of our swords into ploughshares:
- Congress is fed up with the war in Afghanistan, and their turn against the war mirrors the quickly changing public opinion. Last week, an amendment offered by Jim McGovern (D-MA) and Walter Jones (R-NC) garnered the support of 204 members of Congress. This amendment calls for an end to the war in Afghanistan by requiring the president to provide a plan and timeframe for an accelerated drawdown of military operations in Afghanistan. The vote for a similar amendment in July 1, 2010 garnered only 162 votes in favor (McGovern-Obey-Jones). The growth in support was unexpected and puts pressure on the president to begin a significant troop withdrawal in July, and provide clear benchmark reports to Congress.
- The country is fed up with the war. When the war started 10 years ago, the first Harry Potter movie edged out the first Lord of the Rings movie at the box office, and most of our current Sojourners interns were still in middle school. Today, 64 percent of the country no longer believe that the war in Afghanistan is worth fighting. The 10 years of war have shown us that terrorism isn't best fought and defeated by full scale wars, but rather by good intelligence, good police work, targeted actions, and draining the swamp of terror through focused and smart development.
- Despite the lack of bipartisan agreement in Congress, many Republicans and Democrats agree that the war in Afghanistan is a waste of lives and resources. Congress is making cuts to programs that help people move out of poverty, while also voting to spend $100 billion a year on a failed strategy and corrupt government in Afghanistan. Cutting this needless military spending not only helps the deficit, but it will also save the lives of both Americans and Afghans. Politicians who are serious about both security and fiscal responsibility know that it is time for us to get out of Afghanistan.
Our exit strategy needs to be responsible and must focus on long-term stability, development, and security for the Afghan people. It needs to respect the long-standing traditions and realities of the country (through political tools such as power-sharing), while ensuring rights and education for women and girls, who are crucial to the country's future. There is much work left to be done. The president has heard from Congress, but now he needs to hear from you. Tell President Obama it is time to end this war.
Zero Tolerance: Trump, Schwarzenegger, and Strauss-Kahn
May 26, 2011
It's a constant storyline in the media involving powerful men in politics, sports, business, and even religion: Men behave with utter disregard for the dignity and humanity of women -- using and abusing them at will, and somehow believing that they are entitled to do so. These men seem to think that the ordinary rules of decent behavior do not apply to them. We have a never-ending cavalcade of disgusting stories about men cheating on their wives and mothers of their children; abandoning old wives for new ones; serial philandering as a way of life; sexually harassing and assaulting women; and even committing rape. But when all is said and done, the perpetrators are still playing basketball, football, and golf; they are still running for political office, and are still at the helm of the institutions of the economy, and even the church.
Arnold Schwarzenegger, Donald Trump, and Dominique Strauss-Kahn, the (now former) chief of the International Monetary Fund, have all been in the media lately for sins and crimes past, present, and accused. The stories have now come out about a long-time affair Schwarzenegger had with a member of his house staff, Strauss-Kahn’s alleged assault against a hotel maid, and Donald Trump’s long and blatant history of sexism.
As the secret stories are revealed, there is great interest and perverse excitement in the media. The pain and suffering from the women involved, and the invisible hurt of the children, are brushed aside. Instead, the women are subtly, and sometimes directly, blamed. And sometimes, in all-male circles, there is a wink and a nod, and, most disgustingly, even a little envy of the powerful men who get to break all the rules when it comes to women. The primary outcry is from other women who, in the name of equality and dignity, lament this continual pattern of abuse.
What has been missing from this too-often repeated narrative is the condemnation of these behaviors and attitudes from other men -- especially men who are in positions of power, authority, and influence. While the primary blame lies with the perpetrators, we should look next at the good men who say nothing. It’s time for good men to hold accountable those who abuse women. Those who abuse, assault, and rape are not real men. They distort and destroy any sense of healthy manhood. It’s time to tell our sons that they must never act like these abusers and perpetrators, and to make sure to raise our own sons to love, respect, and be faithful to women.
While Schwarzenegger and Strauss-Kahn have provided ugly caricatures of the moral corruption of men in power, Donald Trump sums it up well. For example, the “Trump Rule,” according to a book by a Miss USA pageant winner, required that all contestants parade in front of Trump, the co-owner of the pageant, so that he could separate out those he found attractive. Trump once said this about his own daughter, Ivanka: “She does have a very nice figure … if [she] weren’t my daughter, perhaps I’d be dating her.” And to show how oblivious to criticism he really is, Trump told Esquire in 1991, “You know, it doesn’t really matter what [the media] write as long as you’ve got a young and beautiful piece of [expletive].”
The best use I know of for men who treat women this way are as anti-role models for my two sons. They exemplify what I hope my boys will never become. So here is my little contribution to condemning men who need to be condemned for not behaving. When T.V. shows with these unrepentant men come on, we will change the channel. When movies come out with them on the big screen, we will stay home. When sports games are played with them as stars, we won’t be buying tickets. When another media story erupts because of more bad behavior, my boys will be told that men who abuse women are not real men. They might still have money and power, but their abuse of women diminishes their humanity.
Women are already speaking out, and now it’s time for other men to also say that this bad behavior is no longer acceptable. Other men must condemn these men, not only as immoral and sometimes criminal, but also as the worst examples of what and who we are supposed to be. These men have given their humanity over to their animal impulses. We should publicly point out their bad and unacceptable behavior, and punish their acts as an example to others. We need to establish a new principle: that the abuse of women by men will no longer be tolerated. And the voices of men need to be louder to make that perfectly clear.
Chipotle Firings: One Story of a Broken Immigration System
May 19, 2011
Just over one month ago, a few dozen fired employees demonstrated outside a Chipotle one block from Sojourners' office. The employees reported that they were taken to the back of the store during their 30-minute break and were dismissed without warning. On their way out of the restaurant they saw their replacements already at work. Chipotle fired 40 employees throughout the D.C. area because of questions regarding their immigration status. Workers reported that Chipotle still has not paid nearly $21,000 in wages.
Stories like this occur day after day across the country. Our immigration system is broken. The status quo is not acceptable. It tears apart families, hurts businesses, and divides communities.
This month, Sojourners and Christians for Comprehensive Immigration Reform are featuring "The Stories of Immigration" blog series. We are highlighting stories, songs, and interviews with immigrants and immigrant advocates as a way to offer a behind-the-scenes look at the lives of immigrants and the broken immigration system here in the United States. Click on any of the blogs below to read these powerful stories:
Individuals, communities, and families continue to be hurt by our broken immigration system. Last week, I was reminded of the fear that millions in our country live with every day when I joined my Hispanic brothers and sisters at the National Hispanic Prayer Breakfast. While we are a long way from where we need to be, there are hopeful movements.
At the breakfast, President Barack Obama told the leaders gathered that when they speak out on the need for comprehensive immigration reform, he is listening. Obama said that fixing our immigration system is not just an economic and security imperative, but also a moral imperative.
Action on a national level is absolutely necessary. In lieu of federal leadership, individual states continue to pass patchwork legislation and enforcement policies. In Georgia, a hotly debated piece of immigration legislation that increases enforcement powers against immigrants was signed into law. The bill closely mirrors another bill that passed last year in Utah and ignited a national debate. This type of legislation does more harm than good. Immigration, both constitutionally and practically, is a national issue. Solutions to our broken system will only come from the federal government, and need to be uniform across the country.
Problems with the Secure Communities initiative have led other states, such as Massachusetts, New York, Illinois, and California, to raise objections to the program's impact. The program is designed to spot and deport undocumented immigrants who have been convicted of crimes. Under the program, fingerprints of people booked into a jail are transmitted to a database reviewed by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). If a person is found to be in the U.S. illegally, he or she can face deportation. Unfortunately, the Secure Communities initiative has led to the deportation of thousands of people without criminal records, and it is one of the main forces tearing families and communities apart.
While the broken state of our immigration system, and its desperate need for reform, might not be a part of your daily life, there are many for whom it is. And I am quite sure that if you take the time to look around your church and extended community, it won't take very long to find those who are living with the consequences of a broken system every day.
Afghanistan: No More Excuses
May 12, 2011
After 10 long years, the
national conversation on the war in Afghanistan has changed
significantly. And now, the hunt for Osama bin Laden, used for years to
justify the war, is over. The official reasons for continuing the war
are disappearing each day. The threat of al Qaeda in Afghanistan has
significantly weakened. Many people are shocked when they learn that
there are only 100 al Qaeda operatives left in Afghanistan, but more
than 100,000 American troops remain. As the debate on the deficit heats
up, we need to say again and again that the more than $100 billion a
year that is spent on the war is no longer sustainable. Every American
should know these numbers: 100 terrorists; 100,000 troops; $100 billion
-- it just isn't adding up anymore. There are no more excuses for
delaying a withdrawal of U.S. troops.
A USA TODAY/Gallup Poll
released this week shows that 59 percent of Americans agree that the
"United States has accomplished its mission in Afghanistan and should
bring its troops home." Congressional pressure is also growing. News
reports indicate that those who favor "a swift reduction of U.S.
forces" have been gaining momentum.
A significant part of this
pressure to end the war is the introduction of the "Afghanistan Exit
and Accountability Act" by Representatives Jim McGovern (D-MA) and
Walter Jones (R-NC). H.R. 1735 was submitted with 14 additional
sponsors, eight Democrats, and six Republicans. Ending the war is now a
bipartisan effort. The legislation would require the president to
submit a plan with a timeline and completion date for the transition of
military operations to the Afghan government, and require quarterly
progress reports along with projections of how much would be saved if
the transition were completed in six months.
In his statement,
Rep. McGovern said: "We're told that we can't afford vital domestic
funding, but we should continue to borrow billions and billions of
dollars for nation-building in Afghanistan. That's nuts. … On Monday
[May 2], the Pentagon reported that 1,550 American troops have died in
Afghanistan. Last week, another one of my constituents was killed. Tens
of thousands more have been wounded. … Enough is enough."
Rep.
Walter Jones' opposition to this war has made him a modern profile of
courage. He turned against the war after visiting constituents who lost
their children, fathers, and mothers, as well as soldiers in the
hospital whose lives have been forever shattered. He doesn't think this
war is worth their sacrifice. He is right.
Although the
president has committed to begin withdrawing troops in July, the
military is working behind the scenes to make this withdrawal as small
as possible. In their initial proposal, the military floated a news
story suggesting a withdrawal of only 5,000 troops. This is not
acceptable anymore, and we must insist on a clear, quick, and
responsible exit -- not one slowly drawn out over years. Too much money
has been spent, and too many lives have been lost. It's time for the
war to end. So I am calling on you, our most committed constituents, to
contact your members of Congress and urge them to co-sponsor this legislation. With our voices, we can make a difference, and we must. The time has come to end this war.
Christians Must Call For This War to End
May 5, 2011
There is no more room or time for excuses. The war in Afghanistan -- now the longest war in American history -- no longer has any justification, and I am calling upon Christians, along with other people of good, moral sense, to lead the effort to finally end this war and bring our troops home. On moral, financial, and strategic grounds, the continuation of the war in Afghanistan cannot be justified. The completion of the largest and most expensive manhunt in history for Osama bin Laden must be a turning point to completely rethink our response to terrorism. The threats of terrorists are still real, but it is now clear that full-scale military action is not the most effective response.
It was the campaign against bin Laden and al Qaeda that was always used to justify the war in Afghanistan. General David Petraeus has said there are about 100 al Qaeda fighters in Afghanistan. We have more than 100,000 American troops and another 40,000 coalition soldiers in Afghanistan. That means 1,400 soldiers for each al Qaeda fighter. It costs about $1 million a year to deploy and support each American soldier — or more than $100 billion a year total. That breaks down to our country spending $1 billion per year, per al Qaeda fighter. Every deficit hawk in America should now oppose this war. The cost is simply too high, especially when compared with all the painful budget choices this failed war is causing us to make.
Even more important is the human cost of 1,570 Americans killed, more than 10,000 wounded, and many more families separated -- lives disrupted and changed forever. And Christians must always care about the casualties on the other side, especially innocent lives who are the collateral damage of war. From 2007 to 2010 that number is at least 10,000. This war is not worth that human cost. The damages it causes far outweigh the possible results, and that makes this war unjustifiable. As Chuck Colson recently said, “Maintaining 100,000 troops in Afghanistan no longer meets the just war criteria.”
Continuing the war will lead to greater human and financial costs without a clear understanding of what success could even look like. What began as an understandable action to pursue those who launched the attack on September 11, has now become a war of occupation in Afghanistan; a massive counter-insurgency; the defense of an utterly corrupt and incompetent government; and an impossible effort at military-led nation-building. Long term and sustained strategies of development and democracy building will not be accomplished by an endless, massive military occupation and counter-insurgency; in fact, our current strategy will prevent long-term nation-building.
As more and more people have pointed out, the operation that found and killed bin Laden was not the massive war of counter-insurgency in Afghanistan. It was the result of smart intelligence, good detective work, and aggressive law-enforcement work -- policing, rather than war-making. Even many conservatives have pointed this out, as George Will recently wrote, “bin Laden was brought down by intelligence gathering that more resembles excellent police work than a military operation.”
I met with veterans three weeks ago and heard them say one word over and over again as their moral judgment on what they saw and experienced in Afghanistan -- “cost.” The cost of this war, in any terms, is just too high, and the war must end. This is a nonpartisan issue. I was honored to stand at that same press conference with two of the most consistent and courageous congressional voices, against this war, Democrat Jim McGovern and Republican Walter Jones. What convinced Jones was his regular visits to the wounded veterans of his home district. He saw and felt their pain, he saw the results of the war, and concluded it was not worth the cost.
The time has come to end the war in Afghanistan. Many have shown how it is possible to end it responsibly. (See Sojourners magazine’s March issue.) The war must end now, and I believe the faith community must lead the way.
What is the Circle of Protection?
April 28, 2011
Yesterday, the leaders of more than 50 Christian denominations and organizations drew a line in the sand of the budget debate, and asked our political leaders to do the same. We united around the basic principle that those who are already suffering should not be made to suffer even more in order to reduce the deficit. Evangelical, Roman Catholic, mainline Protestant, black, and Hispanic church leaders came together to say that Christians will form a "Circle of Protection" around programs that assist poor and vulnerable people. Add your voice and join the Circle of Protection now.
From Richard Stearns of World Vision USA to Father Larry Snyder of Catholic Charities USA; from Leith Anderson of the National Association of Evangelicals to Rev. Peg Chemberlin of the National Council of Churches; from Bishop Stephen E. Blair of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops to Bishop Charles E. Blake of the Church of God in Christ; from Rev. Sam Rodriguez of the National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference to Berten Waggoner of Vineyard USA -- all have a signed "A Circle of Protection: A Statement on Why We Need to Protect Programs for the Poor." Sign the statement and see the full list of signatories here.
The Circle of Protection represents an unprecedented unity on behalf of poor and hungry people. I hope you will read the statement below and add your voice to this ongoing fight:
In the face of historic deficits, the nation faces unavoidable choices about how to balance needs and resources and allocate burdens and sacrifices. These choices are economic, political -- and moral.
As Christians, we believe the moral measure of the debate is how the most poor and vulnerable people fare. We look at every budget proposal from the bottom up -- how it treats those Jesus called "the least of these" (Matthew 25:45). They do not have powerful lobbies, but they have the most compelling claim on our consciences and common resources. The Christian community has an obligation to help them be heard, to join with others to insist that programs that serve the most vulnerable in our nation and around the world are protected. We know from our experience serving hungry and homeless people that these programs meet basic human needs and protect the lives and dignity of the most vulnerable. We believe that God is calling us to pray, fast, give alms, and to speak out for justice.
As Christian leaders, we are committed to fiscal responsibility and shared sacrifice. We are also committed to resist budget cuts that undermine the lives, dignity, and rights of poor and vulnerable people. Therefore, we join with others to form a Circle of Protection around programs that meet the essential needs of hungry and poor people at home and abroad.
- The nation needs to substantially reduce future deficits, but not at the expense of hungry and poor people.
- Funding focused on reducing poverty should not be cut. It should be made as effective as possible, but not cut.
- We urge our leaders to protect and improve poverty-focused development and humanitarian assistance to promote a better, safer world.
- National leaders must review and consider tax revenues, military spending, and entitlements in the search for ways to share sacrifice and cut deficits.
- A fundamental task is to create jobs and spur economic growth. Decent jobs at decent wages are the best path out of poverty, and restoring growth is a powerful way to reduce deficits.
- The budget debate has a central moral dimension. Christians are asking how we protect "the least of these." "What would Jesus cut?" "How do we share sacrifice?" As believers, we turn to God with prayer and fasting, to ask for guidance as our nation makes decisions about our priorities as a people.
- God continues to shower our nation and the world with blessings. As Christians, we are rooted in the love of God in Jesus Christ. Our task is to share these blessings with love and justice and with a special priority for those who are poor.
Budgets are moral documents, and how we reduce future deficits are historic and defining moral choices. As Christian leaders, we urge Congress and the administration to give moral priority to programs that protect the life and dignity of poor and vulnerable people in these difficult times, our broken economy, and our wounded world. It is the vocation and obligation of the church to speak and act on behalf of those Jesus called "the least of these." This is our calling, and we will strive to be faithful in carrying out this mission.
We urge you to click here and join the Circle of Protection.
Breaking the Fast, Building the Movement
April 21, 2011
On Easter weekend, I will break my fast. I will have spent almost four weeks drinking only liquids. But, as is often true of fasts, what has been gained is far greater than anything given up. More than 36,000 people and 28 members of Congress joined the fast in their own ways. Millions of people heard the message that a budget is a moral document. Politicians have begun to feel the pressure of those in the faith community who believe that we should not balance the budget at the expense and pain of poor people.
In the FY 2011 budget, the lives and well-being of vulnerable people were compromised. Wasteful military spending was protected while some effective anti-poverty programs at home and abroad were cut. While these cuts crossed moral lines that should never be crossed, analysis by organizations such as Bread for the World and the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities shows that these cuts could have been much worse if the original House budget proposals had been adopted. Pressure on Congress and the administration has been crucial in helping to protect important programs for vulnerable people. Continued pressure will be even more important over the next weeks, months, and years.
Our work to speak out for "the least of these" in the budget process has only just begun. The FY 2012 budget plans that passed the House last week show that the attacks on the poor are getting worse. The big-money interests are using their lobbyists to get what they want out of the budgets. And it is up to people of faith and conscience to push back.
Christians are speaking out against politicians who claim that funding for education for our children and health care for our seniors is wasteful spending. People of conscience are telling politicians that spending $107.3 billion on a misguided strategy in Afghanistan is unacceptable, and military spending is where they should start with the budget cuts. Growing movements of people are calling for corporate tax dodgers to be held accountable. For example, the Boeing Corporation earned $9.7 billion in profits over the last three years, but they did not pay any taxes. General Electric reported $26.3 billion in profits between 2006 and 2010 to their shareholders, but they also did not pay any taxes. These corporations are the real face of "theft" in American life today.
Programs for poor and vulnerable people are not being cut because we can no longer afford them; they are being cut because these programs are simply not a priority for most politicians. Even worse, cuts to programs that serve the poor and vulnerable are being directly used to finance tax cuts for the wealthy and for corporations -- not to reduce the deficit as was promised. And programs that serve vulnerable people are on the chopping block first because we lack political leaders with the moral courage to make better decisions -- in both parties.
The past four weeks of fasting have been personally transformative for me. Fasting has reminded me of the pain that so many in our country and world experience when they go hungry every day. They don't get to end their "fast" at Easter. Most of all, I have been encouraged by all of those who have participated. Too often, injustice is perpetuated because good people just stand on the side lines or feel disempowered to act. The tens of thousands of people who joined in the Hunger Fast for a Moral Budget and added their own passion, creativity, and energy to the movement have confirmed for me that these cuts will not stand. While sometimes the way seems long, this Lent has been spiritual preparation for a sustained political fight. Next week, Sojourners will announce a new coalition of leaders and organizations who will work to grow a movement of Christians and other allies of faith and conscience who oppose unjust and immoral budgets.
On a more personal note, the fast has made me feel fuzzy at times, but also more focused. In coaching both of my sons' Little League baseball teams while fasting, I have had to be careful not to send my players to the wrong base! But my focus on the moral imperative of a decent, fair, and just common life together -- as demonstrated by our budget choices and priorities -- could not be clearer. My two sons, Luke and Jack, understand this message also. Other than their concerns for their Dad's health, they have been very attentive, supportive, and even articulate about the issues at stake in their own ways. I want their generation to understand this message because they will be the ones to build a future with more promise and hope than what we see in our currently confused political moment. And it is my trust in the priorities of the generation represented by my sons, and Sojourners' younger staff and constituency, that gives me the strength to persist with or without my daily bread. The fast will soon be over, but the battle for our common good has just begun.
Woe to You, Legislators!
April 14, 2011
It is reported that Congressman Paul Ryan makes every member of his staff read philosopher Ayn Rand, the shameless promoter of the gospel of aggressive self-interest. This makes sense to me as I read Congressman Ryan's new budget proposal. I wish he had his staff reading the Bible instead.
While widely lauded by conservatives, Congressman Ryan's budget isn't really about deficit reduction. It's about choices -- choices that will determine what kind of a country we become. And Paul Ryan has made the choice to hurt people who don't have the political clout to defend themselves. Two-thirds of the long-term budget cuts that Ryan proposed are directed at modest and low-income people, as well as the poorest of the poor at home and abroad. At the same time, he proposed tax cuts up to 30 percent for some of our country's wealthiest corporations. Let me say that again: Two-thirds of the cuts come at the expense of already struggling people and families, while corporations posting record profits get tax breaks. In short, the most vulnerable members of society are being attacked by Ryan and his supporters. This makes them bullies.
In dramatic contrast, Ryan has chosen to help the people who need help the least. Wealthy individuals and companies reap a windfall of benefits in Ryan's plan -- with tax cuts and breaks, continued subsidies and loopholes for every powerful special interest, and increased corporate welfare payments from the government. Congressman Ryan and his supporters have carefully and faithfully rewarded the rich people who make their campaign contributions, and, in most cases, have also rewarded themselves as rich people. This makes them corrupt.
And, as self-professed budget hawks, they have completely ignored the most consistently egregious, wasteful, and morally compromised area of the whole federal budget -- our endless and unaccountable military spending. Paul Ryan and the Republicans would cut nothing from the Pentagon profligacy. This makes them hypocrites.
You may think that my language sounds too strong: "bullies", "corrupt", "hypocrites." But listen to the prophet Isaiah:
Doom to you who legislate evil, who make laws that make victims -- laws that make misery for the poor, that rob my destitute people of dignity, exploiting defenseless widows, taking advantage of homeless children. What will you have to say on Judgment Day, when Doomsday arrives out of the blue? Who will you get to help you? What good will your money do you? (Isaiah 10:1-3, The Message)
Ryan's budget seems to follow, almost line by line, the "oppressive statues" Isaiah rails against. Ryan's budget slashes health care for the poor and elderly by gutting Medicaid and undermining Medicare, and cuts funding for food stamps, early childhood development programs, low-income housing assistance, and educational programs for students.
Cuts of this magnitude for people of modest and low-incomes will result in a direct increase of poverty and misery in America. Furthermore, poverty-focused international assistance proven to save lives is under continued attack. As Washington Post columnist Michael Gerson said, not all cuts are equal because some will lead to "a fever and a small coffin."
Simply put, the Ryan budget is a bonanza for the rich and devastation for the poor, and it will never be accepted by the religious community. And I don't believe Ryan's budget expresses the values of the American people. I just don't believe it. (You can click here if it doesn't represent your values.)
Of course, many Americans, including in the faith community, believe that rising deficits are immoral and a threat to our future. But how you reduce a deficit is also a moral issue, and to do so by further impoverishing the poor in order to add more wealth to the wealthy is not an acceptable political or moral strategy.
Ayn Rand said, "Money is the barometer of a society's virtue," and she made no apology for not liking the teachings of Jesus. But for those of us who do aim to live out the teachings of Jesus, the Paul Ryan budget is a moral non-starter.
Yesterday, as President Obama offered his budget, he both failed and succeeded. What Obama failed to say was that we are currently wasting lives and billions of dollars in Afghanistan on a strategy that fails to make us any safer. Today, I am joining with some fiscal conservatives and Republican members of Congress at a "ReThink Afghanistan" press conference. We don't agree on a lot of other budget issues, but we are united in our belief that we are wasting lives and money with misguided strategy in Afghanistan. For those who truly care about the deficit, I believe this is the first place we should start cutting.
The president succeeded yesterday by making this important statement: "In the last decade, the average income of the bottom 90 percent of all working Americans actually declined. Meanwhile, the top 1 percent saw their income rise by an average of more than a quarter of a million dollars each. That's who needs to pay less taxes? They want to give people like me a $200,000 tax cut that's paid for by asking 33 seniors each to pay $6,000 more in health costs. That's not right. And it's not going to happen as long as I'm president."
This last line was the clearest message we've heard for some time from the White House. It's a message President Obama will have to repeat over and over again in the months ahead against all the pressures to compromise. Presidents sometimes have to draw some clear lines in the sand, and the time for this president to do that is now.
The Spiritually Viral Hunger Fast
April 7, 2011
The hunger fast for a moral budget has gone spiritually viral. Ten days ago, we announced at the National Press Club that the budget debate had become a moral crisis. Prayer, fasting, and radical action are now required. Sojourners, the Alliance to End Hunger, and Bread for the World spearheaded this effort, but many more organizations, churches, and individuals have joined each day. We now have more than 30,000 participants and are still growing.
From large Christian groups such as World Vision and Opportunity International, to secular groups such as Women Thrive Worldwide and the ONE campaign; from labor unions such as the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), which represents the poorest workers in the country, to MoveOn.org, involvement in this fast is amazingly broad. Twenty-five members of Congress will join the fast, and this work is now referenced constantly on the House floor. More members continue to join, and they plan to have at least one member fasting every day until Easter by "passing the baton" on to their colleagues.
We are keeping the pressure on Congress through emails and phone calls as well as media coverage. CNN, Fox News, PBS, NPR, and many print and online outlets have highlighted the hunger fast. Every story is another opportunity to raise awareness about what is happening in Washington, D.C., and how it will affect the poor across our country and the world. Others are spreading the word by connecting with us on Facebook and Twitter.
My favorite thing about these first 10 days of the fast has been the stories. For example, a doctor friend, calling with concerns about my health, said, "Well, I walked into church today and our youth group announced a 30-hour fast for the poor and a moral budget, and said they were inspired by your fast." Also, a Jewish activist joining our water fast told me he was re-reading the biblical story of Esther, who called the people to a public fast to change the king's mind. He spoke about the emotions he felt when he imagined his 2-year-old daughter having the hunger pangs he was now experiencing. Low-income workers from my hometown of Detroit, Michigan came to one of our congressional events to thank us for fasting, and to say they were joining us.
Finally, we were given a very generous gift from Christ House, a 24-hour residential medical facility for homeless men and women in Washington, D.C., founded by the Church of the Savior. Gordon Cosby, the 94-year-old founder of the church who now lives at Christ House, told me that the homeless men and women had raised the money themselves. And when Gordon said, "I am praying for you every hour," I felt ready to take on the giants of Washington for another day.
The message of the fast gets clearer each day -- fasting tends to focus you, and the message is that a budget is about the choices we make. This fast is not just about cutting spending, but about the values that will determine our priorities and decisions. Should we cut $8.5 billion for low-income housing, or $8.5 billion in mortgage tax deductions for second vacation homes? Should we cut $11.2 billion in early childhood programs for poor kids, or $11.5 billion in tax cuts for millionaires' estates? Should we cut $2.5 billion in home heating assistance in winter months, or $2.5 billion in tax breaks for oil companies and off-shore drilling? This debate isn't about scarcity as much as it is about choices.
This battle over a moral budget will be with us for a while, but it is bringing more and more Christians together -- from the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops to the Salvation Army, from the National Association of Evangelicals to the National Council of Churches, from Sojourners and Bread for the World to a growing number of other denominations and groups -- a vision and strategy is coalescing to form a "circle of protection" around the most critical and life-saving programs for the poorest and most vulnerable people in our communities.
The fast has energized the faith community, poverty and hunger organizations, and secular social change groups, and has helped to spark a broad and united movement for a moral budget. With 17 days left until Easter, we are continuing to create a spiritually empowered community ready to engage in the moral battle for a better budget, a better country, and a better world in the huge political fights that lie ahead. Join the hunger fast for a moral budget, and let's make this fast spiritually viral!
The Discipline of FastingMarch 24, 2011
The extreme budget cuts proposed to critical programs that save the lives, dignity, and future of poor and vulnerable people have crossed the line. Politicians have only just begun to hear from the many church leaders who are ready to wage the good fight over these bad decisions.
Those with money and armies of lobbyists have their interests protected. They won’t bear the burden of reducing the deficit. As this debate continues, we want to flood Capitol Hill with the voices of those who stand with and for poor and vulnerable people. “What Would Jesus Cut?” has resonated with people of faith across the country. Thanks to you, a WWJC bracelet was delivered to every member of Congress, a full page ad ran in Politico, and thousands of emails were sent to politicians asking them the same question. But more needs to be done. We want to run radio and online ads calling other Christians to add their voice to this campaign and pressure Congress. But we can’t do it without your support.
Will you help us get this message out? For $50 dollars we can email another 10,000 Christians asking them to join this campaign. For $100 dollars we can make sure 100,000 people see our message on Facebook. (Give now.)
While following this budget debate, you might be wondering: What happened? How did we get here? First, we saw the proposed budget cuts to many critical programs that directly impact the lives and survival of the poorest people -- both at home and around the world. Life-saving and life-changing initiatives that previously had bipartisan support, and were proven to be cost-effective successes, are now on the chopping block. But enormous military expenditures, corporate subsidies, tax breaks, and loopholes have all been left alone. No attention has been paid to the long-term challenges of Medicare and Medicaid. It was not spending on poor people that created this deficit, and these cruel cuts in programs that help poor people will do little to get us out of our deficit.
Now the budget debate continues to get worse. Plans are underway to single out programs for low-income people and cut them the most. The Republican Study Committee wants to radically scale back all programs for hungry and poor people, cap the programs, and prevent their expansion. Congressman Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), the premier Republican budget cutter, claims that the safety net has become a "hammock." So those who are already hurting will now hurt even more. We are moving from neglecting the poor to targeting the poor. Theologically, this is an assault against the very people God specifically instructs us to protect, and whose well-being is the biblical test of a nation’s righteousness.
These new threats are why we need your continued support.
Over the past few weeks, I have personally felt in my heart a call to fast and pray about these issues during Lent, and to turn to God for wisdom, help, and direction. As I talked to other leaders, I found that I am not the only one. Former Ambassador Tony Hall called and told me that fasting and prayer had been on his heart too. In 1993, he fasted for 22 days in response to similar cuts. Now, almost 20 years later, with the stakes even higher and more lives at risk, a broad circle of faith-based and secular organizations have organized to form a “circle of protection” around vulnerable people. So I am joining Ambassador Tony Hall, David Beckmann of Bread for the World, ONE, American Jewish World Service, Meals on Wheels, Islamic Relief, and a broad coalition of many others to fast, pray, and act during Lent.
In the book of Esther, we see an example of fasting, praying, and petitioning political powers to change unjust actions by the government. We want to follow that model of prayer, fasting, and action. In the coming days and weeks, we will ask you to join us.
With your help, we will reach out to other Christians and people of faith and conscience to ask them to join us through the ads and work you support.
Our nation and its leaders need to do some soul searching. All of us need to do some soul searching. The attacks coming out of Congress on programs that help poor and vulnerable people are unprecedented in my lifetime. Now, more than ever, people of faith need to speak and act. We need to turn to God for such a time as this, and seek God’s wisdom and power, which is far beyond politics. Many of us are choosing to fast and pray. I hope you will join us, each in your own way, so we can act together during this season of Lent.
We Must Pray and Act for Japan
Once again, we are seeing human and environmental tragedy. In Japan, a natural disaster has destroyed all human attempts for control. Half a world away from the United States, a nation is in shock and the mourning has just begun. Japan and its people will never be the same. The world is seeing, once again, incredible stories of pain and loss, and, in the midst of all the suffering, other stories of hope and heroism. There is no satisfying theological explanation of why such things happen; the earth shifts and the oceans rage. Why here? Why now? Nobody really knows. In a very sad way, these catastrophes bring people together. Around the globe, people have been moved to help. It's often somebody else's pain and loss that reminds us of what is important and what is not -- and even what it means to be human.
Of course, there is a very human temptation to just turn off the TV, to shut off your heart and your mind, and say that it is all just too much to take in. Yet, the images that are hard to see and the stories that are hard to hear are often the ones that change us most, and indeed they should. As a Christian, I don't have easy answers to this kind of human suffering, but I believe it breaks the heart of God -- and that means it should break our hearts too. We should feel pain when we see others in pain.
This disaster has another dimension that is still unfolding -- a potential nuclear crisis. The size of the quake and the surge of the waters were more than the "completely safe" nuclear power plants could handle. "Completely safe," as they say, has just left the house. It's like the "completely safe" off-shore drilling in the Gulf of Mexico. Or maybe "clean coal" or the "real doubts" about climate change. All of this goes out the window when the impossible happens. Yesterday, on a morning show, I heard a debate between going nuclear, which risks the deaths of thousands of people and the contamination of whole areas of the globe, versus the complete destruction of the planet due to global warming. Lovely choices. Are these really the only ones? We now need to discuss this at a much deeper level. What if we finally pushed all the huge special interests of the energy industries aside and decided to push for the best future options? What if we told them that their interests are simply not in line with the common good and their disasters are no longer acceptable to us? What would that look like? Could we build a safe energy future?
But the immediate challenge today is to allow the images and the stories from Japan to make us more connected with the world around us. When we see others suffer like this, the worst thing to do is to listen to public officials who tell us, "Don't worry, it couldn't happen here." Of course it could. To be human is to be vulnerable, and there is no way to take this away. A shared sense of vulnerability is what could change us all for the better.
Seeing the pain of others can help us to open up our hearts and our lives. Instead of just being spectators, we can always find a way to help. Christians are always called to pray and act. Our prayers are not in vain. As Lent has started, I am reminded that our fasting is not in vain either. Our Lenten practices are more than just personal, spiritual exercises; rather, prayer and fasting must lead to actions that change us and the world.
In the face of Japan's overwhelming tragedy, we should not turn away or simply become just gawking spectators. As Christians we always have the responsibility to respond in some way. May God's peace and healing be with the people of Japan, and may their suffering bring the church to prayer and action towards a more peaceful global future.
Meet the Martinezes: One Family's Reach for the American Dream
March 10, 2011
"Religion that is pure and undefiled before God, the [Lord], is this: to care for orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself unstained by the world." (James 1:27)
I met the Martinez family almost 20 years ago. They had just received their green cards after immigrating to Chicago from Puebla, Mexico, an impoverished community outside of Mexico City. Like many families, the Martinezes came to the United States in search of a better life for their children.
Jose, the father of the family, struggled to adjust to a new culture that was filled with strange sounds, smells, and values. His kids also struggled, but they found it easier to fit into the "American way of life" by learning English and navigating the dangers of the streets. This family of five got by through hard work and staying together. Maria, the mother of the family, worked odd jobs cleaning homes and doing whatever other work she could find. Jose worked as a line cook at a downtown diner catering to bankers and professionals -- most of whom made as much money in a couple of months as Jose earned in an entire year.
Due to the extreme pressure of providing for his family, both here and back in Mexico, Jose often turned to drinking. When I met him and Maria, their marriage was on the rocks; their financial situation was in constant crisis; and their kids needed support. Most of all, the Martinezes were desperate for opportunity and hope.
Not long after I met them, the entire family responded to the good news of God's love, which they knew they needed. Unlike so many U.S. citizens who have too much material comfort to see their spiritual malnutrition, the Martinezes devoured every opportunity to study the Word, fellowship with other seekers, and attend Sunday service. They found countless ways to serve God and others. They worked hard to get ahead, and on a few occasions they almost became homeowners. In many respects, the Martinezes began to experience the life they longed for in coming to "El Norte" (the North). Life was not a picnic, but their new life, built on hard labor and minimum wages, was much better than what they had left behind.
I wish I could say that their dramatic conversion to Christ changed their economic well-being in a radical way, but 20 years later, they are still pounding out a living, one day at a time. Like most Americans, the Martinez family has been hit hard by the current recession. Jose lost the restaurant job he held for 13 years, and he is very grateful to be working five hours a day at his current place of employment, although he knows it's not enough to provide for his family. Maria works at a school across the street from their home, which saves them the gas money they don't have. Also, a couple of their kids still chip in to help make ends meet. But instead of complaining, the Martinezes work harder and trust that God will meet their needs, not their wants, one day at a time.
Jose called me a few days ago and asked me to keep my eyes open for a second job, which he desperately needs. Then he asked me if I would help him round up 10 computers for his church because they want to start a learning center for kids in the neighborhood who need a safe place to study and escape the danger of gangs. "If we don't look out for each other, we'll never make it," Jose told me. I could not agree with him more. As simple as this sounds, my friend Jose's admonition is exactly what James reminds us is at the core of true, Christ-centered religion -- a radical sense of responsibility to care for the widow, the orphan, the poor, and the vulnerable in a way that expresses what my friend Shane Claiborne calls "the economics of love."
As I travel across the country listening to the stories of the poor and the concerns of Christians from every economic spectrum, I sense that the church is recalibrating its priorities to be an agent of compassion at this time of extreme economic crisis. I lament that our government is on the verge of turning its back on the most vulnerable in our still very wealthy society, while paying special attention to the wealthy, who need our help the least.
At the start of Lent, we must remind our lawmakers, our business leaders, our citizens, and ourselves that when we ignore the poor in favor of our own comfort, we work towards our own demise, and, ultimately, to the demise of our entire nation.
Can an Orange Bracelet Turn Hearts in Washington?
March 3, 2011
In a credit to both Republicans and Democrats, Congress just passed a measure that will avoid a government shutdown for at least the next two weeks. This means that there is still time to protect the poor and most vulnerable during the budget debate.
Sojourners' supporters and partners placed a full-page ad in Monday's Politico entitled, "What Would Jesus Cut?" which was signed by 28 leaders of churches and faith-based organizations across the theological and political spectrum. It created quite a stir. The ad's purpose was to ask our legislators to defend critical and effective programs that save the lives of thousands of children every day and help low-income people survive -- the same programs that were created with bipartisan support in the past. Tough choices are upon us, but faith leaders are saying that abandoning the most vulnerable should not be among our choices. The ad reminds us that a budget is a moral document, revealing our priorities and choices. And it reminds us that Jesus says in Matthew 25 that we will be judged by how we treat "the least of these." As a result of this ad, a discussion about what budget priorities might please or sadden Jesus has now been raised on CNN, MSNBC, PBS, The Washington Post, USA Today, and many national and local radio shows. It has also exploded across Facebook and Twitter.
This week, I have reminded television and radio talk show hosts that our budget didn't get into this mess because we spent too much money on poor people! And cutting programs that help the most vulnerable (which are among the most cost-effective and least costly public spending we have) isn't going to get us out of financial trouble, or reduce the deficit in ways that we now need. Excessive deficits are indeed a moral issue and they place crushing burdens on our children and grandchildren. But how we reduce the deficit is also a moral issue.
But, of course, I have been asked, "Okay then, what would you cut?" This debate has reminded me of the famous statement by bank robber Willie Sutton. When asked why he robbed banks, he famously replied, "Because that's where the money is." If we really want to reduce the deficit, we also have to go where the real money is: our massive military spending, corporate welfare subsides to big businesses, and corporate tax loopholes, as well as the long term costs of health care and Social Security, which will require important future reforms. On a television program yesterday evening, I said that I want those who now propose major cuts to critical low-income family support programs to say, out loud, that every item of Pentagon spending is more important to our well-being and security than school lunches, child health, and early education programs.
Our good partner, Bread for the World, has made a list of the top 10 cuts that would hurt poor and hungry people at home and abroad. The total amount of those cuts is $5.177 billion. Let's do the numbers. For President Obama's "surge" in Afghanistan we sent more than an additional 30,000 troops. The estimated cost of keeping one soldier in Afghanistan for one year is now $1 million. Preserving the funding for the top 10 cuts that would most hurt poor and hungry people would cost about as much as 5,000 troops in Afghanistan. This is the simple math. Bring 5,000 troops home from Afghanistan and save funding for Head Start; the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program; the Women, Infants, and Children nutrition assistance program; Hunger Free Communities Grants; McGovern-Dole food aid programs; the Development Assistance Account; the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief; the Global Health and Child Survival Account; the Millennium Challenge Account; and the Peace Corps.
Most of these programs have enjoyed significant bipartisan support in the past because they are both cost-effective and literally save the lives of children and families. Of course, the Bible doesn't mandate specific programs or prescribe a specific level of funding for any of them. And, we haven't been trying to get Jesus to be the head of any budget committee, or think that he would ever want that job! The ad was made to simply make a point about our faith and our values. Since Jesus is concerned about our action (and our inaction) when it comes to the poor, we should also be concerned. If these programs were being reformed to be more effective or replaced with better strategies to help the poor, that would be another issue; instead, they are just being slashed. Because our biblical values demand that we both serve and defend the poor, we want to make sure that legislators consider how their actions will impact the most vulnerable people. This is part of our vocation as people of faith.
Thanks to all of you, next week, orange WWJC? bracelets will be delivered to every member of Congress, and they will be invited to wear the bracelets when they vote on the budget. This is no longer just an ad; it's a campaign.
This is Not Fiscal Conservatism. It's Just Politics.
February 24, 2011
The current budget and deficit debate in America is now dominating the daily headlines. There is even talk of shutting down the government if the budget-cutters don't get their way. There is no doubt that excessive deficits are a moral issue and could leave our children and grandchildren with crushing debt. But what the politicians and pundits have yet to acknowledge is that how you reduce the deficit is also a moral issue. As Sojourners said in the last big budget debate in 2005, "A budget is a moral document." For a family, church, city, state, or nation, a budget reveals what your fundamental priorities are: who is important and who is not; what is important and what is not. It's time to bring that slogan back, and build a coalition and campaign around it.
The governor of Wisconsin, Scott Walker, says he only really cares about his budget deficit; however, it now appears that he proudly sees himself as the first domino in a new strategy for Republican governors to break their public employee unions. (We are already seeing similar actions in Indiana, Ohio, and New Jersey.) Governor Walker's proposed bill is really more about his ideological commitments and conservative politics -- which favor business over labor -- than about his concern for Wisconsin's financial health. Thousands of working-class Americans are now protesting in the streets of Madison and have made this a national debate. Even protesters in Egypt are sending messages of hope (and pizzas) to the Wisconsin demonstrators.
The Republican governors' counter parts in the U.S. House of Representatives are also not cutting spending where the real money is, such as in military spending, corporate tax cuts and loop-holes, and long term health-care costs. Instead, they are cutting programs for the poorest people at home and around the world. This is also just political and not genuine fiscal conservatism. It is a direct attack on programs that help the poor and an all-out defense of the largesse handed out to big corporations and military contractors. If a budget is a moral document, these budget-cutters show that their priorities are to protect the richest Americans and abandon the poorest -- and this is an ideological and moral choice. The proposed House cuts, which were just sent to the Senate, are full of disproportionate cuts to initiatives that have proven to save children's lives and overcome poverty, while leaving untouched the most corrupt and wasteful spending of all American tax dollars -- the Pentagon entitlement program. This is not fiscal integrity; this is hypocrisy.
U.S. military spending is now 56 percent of the world's military expenditures and is more than the military budgets of the next 20 countries in the world combined. To believe all that money is necessary for genuine American security is simply no longer credible. To say it is more important than bed nets that prevent malaria, vaccines that prevent deadly diseases, or child health and family nutrition for low-income families is simply immoral. Again, these are ideological choices, not smart fiscal ones. To prioritize endless military spending over critical, life-saving programs for the poor is to reverse the biblical instruction to beat our swords into plowshares. The proposed budget cuts would beat plowshares into more swords. These priorities are not only immoral, they are unbiblical.
Now some members of Congress seem to want to force a government showdown over all this. They are saying there will be no shared sacrifice for the rich, only sacrifices from the poor and middle-class, or we will shut down the government. The only people whose lives have returned to normal in America are the ones who precipitated our financial and economic crisis in the first place. They have all returned to record profits, while many others are still struggling with unemployment, stagnant wages, loss of benefits, home foreclosures, and more. These representatives are claiming that we should restore fiscal integrity by protecting all the soaring billionaires, while forcing the already-squeezed to make more and more concessions.
Let me offer a word to those who see this critique as partisan. I've had good friendships with Republican members of Congress, but not the kind who get elected by their party anymore. But let's be clear, when politicians attack the poor, it is not partisan to challenge them; it is a Christian responsibility.
This is wrong, this is unjust, this is vile, and this must not stand. Next week, thanks to your support, look for a full-page ad in Politico signed by faith leaders and organizations across the country that asks Congress a probing question: "What would Jesus cut?" These proposed budget cuts are backwards, and I don't see how people of faith can accept them. And we won't.
This Lent -- Looking Inward, Looking Outward
February 17, 2011
Congress is working on the
federal budget for the rest of the fiscal year 2011. It is now clear
that some of the proposed budget cuts would slash programs that save
the lives of some of the poorest people on the planet. These programs
have been championed by Republicans and Democrats in the past, but now
some of the best programs our government funds to help combat pandemic
diseases and eliminate poverty are on the chopping block. Here is a
snapshot of what that looks like.
If just one of the proposed cuts is passed -- $450 million in
contributions to the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Malaria and
Tuberculosis -- approximately 10.4 million bed nets that help prevent
malaria will not reach people who need them; 6 million treatments for
malaria will not be given; 3.7 million people will not be tested for
HIV; and 372,000 tests and treatments for tuberculosis will not be
administered.
While the White House has done much better than Congress in protecting
critical international aid, President Obama's proposed budget for the
fiscal year 2012, which he just released this week, shows deep cuts to
domestic anti-poverty programs. Grants that state and local governments
use to fund the most effective anti-poverty programs in their area
would be cut by $300 million, including assistance for low-income
people with heat and energy bills, which would be cut up to $2.5
billion. Obama's proposed budget left me asking, should poor families
have to survive harsh winters without heating oil because politicians
are not willing to take on much bigger and far less effective areas of
exorbitant spending?
Both the fight around the rest of the fiscal year 2011 budget and
Obama's proposal for the fiscal year 2012 show the bad priorities of
Washington. If the Republicans go through with these cuts to
international aid, they should stop talking about family values and
being pro-life. And if the Democrats don't fulfill their historic role
of defending low-income people, we must ask, what good are they as a
party? When I read the gospels, the narrative is clear: Defend the poor
and pray for the rich. But our political leaders have taken to
defending the rich, and if the poor are lucky, they might get a prayer.
It's time for the prophetic voice of the churches to be heard.
Excessive deficits are indeed a moral issue -- but how we got into this
deficit and how we now address it are also moral concerns. We certainly
did not get into this much fiscal trouble by spending too much on the
poor, and trying to reduce the deficit now at the expense of our most
vulnerable people is simply morally unacceptable. It's time to look at
our bloated military budgets, our endless wars, our corporate bailouts
and subsidies, and, yes, our middle class entitlements.
But how can we prepare for the moral fight that is ahead of us? Our
prophetic role is never divorced from our own personal responsibility
and transformation. We've heard from many pastors and lay leaders about
the increasing burdens they feel as their churches are still being hit
hard by the effects of the economic crisis. We want to offer resources
and encouragement to those who are on the front lines of helping those
in need, especially during the upcoming season of Lent, which is a time
to look at ourselves, examine our own choices and priorities, and test
the love of Christ in our own lives.
I want to offer two resources to you. First, Sojourners is hosting a
conference call with Elizabeth Warren, head of the Consumer Financial
Protection Bureau; Noel Castellanos, CEO of Christian Community
Development Association; and Rev. Joel Hunter, Senior Pastor of
Northland, A Church Distributed. They will share reports on what is
happening on the ground across the country, best practices for how
churches are meeting new challenges, and what kinds of structural
changes we need as a country around bad loans and bad credit. You can sign up for the call for free here.
Second, we have put together a Lenten study for groups called Rediscovering Values this Lent.
This study is in seven parts and will bring your church or small group
through various Lenten themes, while challenging how we view money and
the economy. As you are preparing for Lent this year, we hope you will
take advantage of these resources.
This Lent we must look both inward to ourselves and outward to holding
our political leaders accountable. Sojourners wants to help you do
both. This dual focus -- inward and outward -- runs deep in our faith
tradition and is essential to our own faithful integrity. Let's make
this Lent both a pastoral and prophetic season of reflection and
action. God bless you.
Budget Cuts and Bad Faith
February 10, 2011
House Republicans announced a plan yesterday to cut $43 billion in domestic spending and international aid, while increasing spending for military and defense by another $8 billion. This proposal comes just months after billions of dollars were added to the deficit with an extension of tax cuts to the wealthiest 2 percent of Americans. House Republicans focused in on only 12 percent of federal spending, and targeted things like education, the environment, food safety, law enforcement, infrastructure, and transportation -- programs that benefit or protect most Americans. They also proposed cutting funding for programs that benefit the most vulnerable members of our society, such as nutrition programs for our poorest women and children. We don't yet know all the cuts Republicans are targeting in their proposals, but it's good to finally know what their priorities are.
Under the proposed budget cuts, deficit reduction will not come from the super-rich; it will come from the rest of us. And the poorer you are, the more vulnerable you become, and the more you will pay for the burdens of deficit reduction. For example, Women, Infants, and Children (WIC), a program that helps provide food to hungry mothers and their children faces a $758 million cut. Also, the proposed budget cuts $544 million in international food aid grants for organizations such as World Vision. AmeriCorps, a program that provides public service opportunities for our young adults, would be eliminated entirely. But our military and defense budget, which sends our young adults off to kill and be killed, would receive an $8 billion increase.
It used to be very popular for Christians to ask, "What Would Jesus Do?" They even wore bracelets with the initials "WWJD." The bracelets acted as reminders that as Christians, our actions should always reflect the values and example we see in the life of Jesus. Already, in a first wave of response to the proposed cuts, thousands of Christians told their members of Congress that they need to ask themselves, "What Would Jesus Cut?" They believe, and so do I, that the moral test of any society is how it treats its poorest and most vulnerable citizens. And that is exactly what the Bible says, over and over again.
I believe that vaccines that save children's lives; bed nets that protect them from malaria; and food that keeps their families from starving are more important to Jesus than tax cuts for the rich; bigger subsidies for corporations; and more weapons in a world already filled with conflict. I also believe that tested and effective domestic programs that clearly help to lift people out of poverty are more reflective of the compassion of Christ than tax and spending policies that make the super-rich even richer. And I don't believe, as the Republicans keep saying, that the best way to help everybody is to keep helping the super-rich. That's not smart economics and, as we say in the evangelical community, it's not biblical. So many of us in the faith community are ready to make a moral argument against the proposed budget cuts to our members of Congress, especially to those who claim to be people of faith.
Organizations like Bread for the World and Catholic Charities advocate for critical nutrition programs that keep hunger at bay for millions of American families. Groups such as Habitat for Humanity, the Salvation Army, and the Christian Community Development Association deliver crucial health and human services around the country that hold neighborhoods and cities together. Government aid to programs like these is money very well spent, and many would have to shut their doors without it. Government funding is critical to the work that faith-based organizations like World Vision and Catholic Relief Services do around the world to bring millions of children and families out of poverty, and public-private partnerships pioneered by foundations such as the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation that are saving millions of lives.
In Great Britain, Prime Minister Cameron made the choice to delay a costly nuclear submarine program while also increasing funding for international aid. We can do the same. Look to leaders in the faith community to say that the choice to protect the rich instead of the poor in deficit reduction is an immoral one. Taking the cutting knife to programs that benefit low-income people, while refusing to scrutinize the much larger blank checks we keep giving to defense contractors and corporate executives, is hypocritical and cruel. I'll go even further and say that such a twisted moral calculus for the nation's fiscal policy is simply not fair, and not right. It is not only bad economics, but also bad religion. The priorities we are now seeing are not consistent with Christian, Jewish, or Muslim values. And if the super-rich and their representatives in Congress persist in this fight against the poor, they will be picking a fight with all of us.
Call on Obama: Tell Mubarak to Leave Now
February 3, 2011
By all journalistic reports,
it was the Egyptian government of President Hosni Mubarak that sent
thousands of armed thugs into Tahrir Square and the streets of Cairo
yesterday to bring violence to what had been a peaceful and nonviolent
protest for democracy. Some think many of those who were attacking the
protesters were police in plain clothes. Others are believed to have
been hired and bused in to foment violence with machetes, clubs, and
razors -- some riding in on horses and camels into the peaceful crowds.
A call for peace now must mean a call for Mubarak's immediate resignation.
What
had been an exemplary nonviolent protest -- with people serving tea to
each other and to the young soldiers in the square -- suddenly turned
into a bloody conflict. By some accounts, the death of more than 300
Egyptian protesters outnumbers those who died in the Iranian protests
of 2009.
But the Egyptian protesters refuse to retreat and vow
to continue their democratic crusade, saying they would "die in the
streets" if necessary. As I write, the struggle has gone back and forth
into the afternoon and evening. Yesterday, New York Times columnist
Nicholas Kristof posted on his Facebook page: "Something incredible is
happening at Tahrir Square in Egypt: The pro-Mubarak thugs whom the
government sent here with clubs, machetes and straight razors are
retreating! The democracy forces seem to be winning this battle. It's a
symbol of Mubarak's incompetence that he dispatches armed thugs to
engineer a crackdown -- and can't even achieve that."
Mubarak
has often used thugs to intimidate the Egyptian people, steal
elections, and repress those who dissent from his dictatorial and
corrupt regime. And the truth is that President Mubarak is the big
thug. It's time for him to immediately resign and leave Egypt, and
allow a genuine political process to begin with fair and free elections
in a new Egypt.
And it's time for President Barack Obama to call for Mubarak to resign.
As
the biggest supplier of military aid to Egypt, it is the responsibility
of the United States to call for Mubarak's withdrawal. Last night,
thousands of people of faith called upon the president to do so. If you
have not done so already, click here to send this message to the White House. And if Mubarak doesn't respond to Obama's appeal, the United States government should end its military aid to Egypt.
This
is a moral issue, and an urgent one -- and it's time for the faith
community to speak and to speak clearly. I believe President Obama is
very frustrated and angry over the situation in Egypt, and, while he
has called for a "transition" to occur, he now needs to clearly call
for Mubarak's resignation and departure from Egypt. Mubarak cannot stay
and try to manipulate elections in September, and the necessary
preparations for genuine elections simply cannot occur with Mubarak
still in power. A strong word of encouragement from thousands in the
faith community and beyond could help our president do the right thing
-- and do it now. President Obama must call on the dictator to leave
now and open the way for democracy in Egypt.
So please send this message and action alert to family, friends, and members of your churches and communities.
Values at Davos
January 27, 2011
Yesterday was the first day of the World Economic Forum in Davos, a little mountain village in Switzerland, where each January corporate CEOs, heads of state, and leaders of nonprofit organizations from around the globe gather to reflect upon the state of the world.
I had been to Davos before the financial crisis of 2008, as part of a group of religious leaders who came to discuss interfaith cooperation, but who also began to dialogue with the other participants at Davos about moral values and the economy. Quite honestly, these conversations about moral values and the economy often felt like an extra-curricular activity -- with sessions at 7 a.m. on the third floor. But after the economic crisis hit, our values conversations felt more like a necessity, and we were quickly moved to prime time in the main hall.
At Davos 2008, the World Economic Forum convened a plenary session for all its participants on "Values and the Market." I was on the panel and said that asking when the crisis will end was the wrong question; the right question was, how will the crisis change us? Looking out over a huge hall full of business and political leaders (not my usual audience), I suggested that too often people didn't believe they had to bring virtue and values to bear on economic decisions -- that the market would automatically take care of those things. But, as the economic crisis has shown, this was the wrong mentality. The panel caused a buzz, and its questions resonated through that week, leading to many "pastoral" conversations with CEOs who told me they had "lost" some important values. The positive response I felt at Davos eventually led me to write a new book, Rediscovering Values: A Guide for Economic and Moral Recovery. I began to speak at business schools, and found business leaders coming to talk to me like Nicodemus at night.
A year later, at Davos 2009, there were 17 sessions with the word "values" in the title. I found myself on a plenary panel with Muhammad Yunus, founder of the Grameen Bank in Bangladesh, addressing the subject of "Rethinking Values in the Post-Crisis World," and talking about business with a moral purpose -- even as a tool for eliminating poverty. But some of us began to feel the danger of just holding values seminars as a response to a devastating economic crisis. Behaviors created this crisis, and unless our values talk led to changed behaviors, it all wouldn't mean very much.
Out of that conference a Global Agenda Council on Values was formed, and I now find myself unexpectedly as its chair. This Council on Values has been given the task of shaping what the World Economic Forum is calling the "Moral Economy Dialogue" -- a multi-year process that will develop serious tools for personal, organizational, corporate, and national values assessments that focus on changing behaviors.
This week at Davos 2011, new metrics like "human flourishing" and "the common good" are being lifted up. Again, I have had many personal conversations with business executives who feel alone in their soul-searching for values. Furthermore, business ethics professors at some of the country's leading business schools have also told me that their courses are over-subscribed, yet they still feel marginal to the curriculum.
All day yesterday, in many of the sessions here at Davos, we wrestled with feeling "stuck" in trying to implement values-change at big corporations and banks. We are now moving from just a conversation on values to a conversation on behavioral change. For example, we had a session yesterday on "Defining Shared Norms." We spoke of the need for both external regulation and self-regulation; both external accountabilities and the internal moral compass which comes from embedding values in a business. This is all good news to Klaus Schwab, the founder and executive chairman of Davos who, as a young Swiss economist many years ago, wrote about the need for business to not only take into account the interests of shareholders, but also of the many other stakeholders -- including employees, consumers, the poor, the environment, and future generations.
That Davos would take these issues very seriously, and would turn to faith community leaders for help, is good news to me. But the headline in yesterday’s International Herald Tribune -- "The Super-Rich Pull Ever Farther Ahead" -- indicated we still have a long way to go. Many of those super-rich are at Davos, and I indicated yesterday that the only people whose lives seem to have got back to "normal" since the financial crisis began are those whose behaviors caused it in the first place. They are back to record profits, while a seminar I attended yesterday showed how dramatic and devastating unemployment still is around the globe -- especially for young people.
But the conversations here lasted far into the night, and I woke up this morning with a full day of more work before us, including one session where I will speak on "Mindful Leadership." Indeed, leadership -- moral leadership -- is clearly the issue now, and our session today is already overbooked. And that's a good sign. I find myself spending time at Davos every year now with an exciting group of about 50 young entrepreneurs called the Young Global Leaders, who are asking some of the most important questions that are before us.
The snow keeps falling here, but there are signs and hopes for spring.
What a Tragedy Can Call Us To Do
January 13, 2011
We needed to be called to transcend politics in our response to the shootings in Arizona, lest the politics of our reactions to this tragedy turn us even further against one another. We needed to honor the heroism demonstrated by so many ordinary people during this senseless and evil attack on Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, which killed six people and wounded 14 others. We needed to be called to use their example to find the best in all of us and become better people ourselves. We needed to be called to end the ideological blame and battles that were already distracting us from learning the many lessons of this horrible event. We needed to be called to make our public discourse better.
Barack Obama did all that last night during a memorial service at the University of Arizona for the victims of last Saturday's shooting in Tucson, Arizona. The president delivered a speech that was both presidential and pastoral. His speech was a call to the nation to move to a higher and better place -- to build an America that is worthy of the people who were killed or wounded, or who acted heroically during the tragic shooting. I believe this speech revealed the heart and vision of this president more than any other speech he has delivered in the first two years of his administration. If you haven't read it yet, please do; or better yet, watch it.
You could feel the president's emotions most when he spoke about little Christina Taylor Green, the youngest shooting victim. Many of us parents who were listening felt our own eyes well up when he said, "In Christina, we see all of our children, so curious, so trusting, so energetic, so full of magic, so deserving of our love, and so deserving of our good example. … I want our democracy to be as good as Christina imagined it. I want America to be as good as she imagined it. All of us, we should do everything we can to make sure this country lives up to our children's expectations." Last night's speech was an invocation of the spiritual and biblical wisdom that "a child shall lead them."
President Obama also took the discussion of this tragedy beyond the debates about "civility," which have already become so politicized. He said, "And if, as has been discussed in recent days, their deaths usher in more civility in our public discourse, let's remember that it is not because a simple lack of civility caused this tragedy, but rather because only a more civil and honest public discourse can help us face up to our challenges as a nation, in a way that would make them proud." That was the political sound bite of the evening, and the one I hope all our political commentators in this country take to heart.
I watched the memorial service in Birmingham, Alabama, where I attended a meeting of Christian Churches Together (CCT) -- a new fellowship of America's church leaders that crosses the boundaries of theology, tradition, and, yes, politics. Many of us watched the president's speech together. We had just spent the day slowly walking through the Civil Rights Institute that is here, recounting the moving history of a movement that fought hatred and violence to bring us together as a nation.
As I walked the historical trail of the civil rights movement at that extraordinary museum, I reflected on how weak our notions of "civility" sometimes are. We don't overcome oppression, division, hatred, and violence just by being nice and polite, or by making sure we don't get too passionate. Instead, hatred is only overcome with the power of love, and violence is best defeated by the persistence of nonviolence that is aimed at winning people over, rather than winning over them. Sometimes "civility" is the best we can do; but ultimately, our violent differences, and even our more serious disagreements, are most effectively and deeply responded to with love.
We saw that love expressed in the service last night. For five days, much of the nation has been waiting at the side of the hospital bed of Congresswoman Giffords, alongside her husband Mark Kelly. Just before his speech, the president and the first lady visited that hospital room. Shortly after they left, Congresswoman Giffords opened her eyes for the first time. When President Obama shared this during his speech, the ecstatic applause that rose from the audience expressed the hope of the nation for Gabby's courageous and miraculous recovery. The raw courage and powerful love now present at Gabby's hospital room is being reported around the country. As she opens her eyes, I pray that this would become a moment when we all open our own.
A Message of Gratitude
January 6, 2011
On New Year's Day I sat and reflected on the past year. The feeling that rushed through me was gratitude -- of course, for Joy and my boys, Luke and Jack, who are the loves of my life and a constant source of delight, fun, and happiness I never knew before; for the wonderful team at Sojourners that I am blessed to work with; for the faithful love, prayers, and support from so many Sojourners friends and donors; and ultimately gratitude to God, who gave us this mission many years ago and continues to sustain us. Amazing grace all around.
In many ways, it was a difficult year. Our commitment to social justice and living out Christ's call for us to be his hands and feet in this world came under attack like never before. But when television and radio shows and the resources of an entire cable network were turned against us and all "social justice Christians," it only expanded the number of those who understood the importance of a commitment to the biblical vision of social justice.
In the midst of some of the worst attacks, one of my staff members told me he received a call from his parents. They told him that while they don't agree with every policy stance Sojourners takes, they believe that we do our best every day to live out the gospel of Jesus in a broken world, and if the attacks are that bad, we must be doing something right. So they became supporters. This December, the number of donors who gave to our work increased two-and-a-half times over. More than 4,500 people donated to Sojourners in the month of December alone. For all that, I am filled with gratitude.
Every time a new supporter joins our work it is a reminder that while the fight for biblical justice might sometimes be lonely, we are never alone. This is more important now than ever before. Most likely, the attacks from the Far Right that intensified this year are likely to continue and even grow in volume and vehemence. But Sojourners has been attacked before. Our commitment to not only helping the poor, but also asking why they are poor, has been vilified in the past. I remember what Brazilian Archbishop Dom Helder Camara once said: "When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist."
Saying that we should be Christians first and Americans after has always made some people mad. We are not "America-first" Christians, but "Christ-first" Christians, and there is a difference. Reaching out and building bridges with those who are different, foreigners, strangers, or "the other" to create peace and reconciliation has been demonized time and again. But we have always said and done those things and always will. Sometimes the attacks hurt -- especially when they are false accusations -- but God has always been faithful, and so has our extended community of Sojourners.
That is why this year we are renewing our focus on providing resources that teach us how to understand our identity as Christians, follow Christ into a world desperate for justice and peace, and think critically about the issues we face as a church and a nation. We want to make sure you have the biblical knowledge and insights you need to speak and act on God's heart for the poor, needy, and marginalized in your church, neighborhood, and world. We want to make sure you have the opportunities for action that could make a difference.
I am filled with gratitude that so many of you have committed just a few dollars a day, or much more, to this work -- even in tough economic times. This is important because one of the attacks that was made up last year was that we get most of our funding from secular atheists! Nope, it's mostly a bunch of Christians -- lots of them. The support that we are blessed by is a testament to how important this work is to so many of you who made the decision to start giving this year, or to keep giving even in challenging times.
Of course, there is so much more work to do. The attacks will keep coming, but the movement will keep growing. We will continue to grow the gospel movement of love and justice, particularly by inviting a new generation of activists to join. I pray that you will continue to be a part of this movement, by reaching out to those around you with the help of the resources and inspiration we try to provide.
Giving transforms us. It changes the way we see the world. And when the way we see the world changes, changing the world isn't far behind.
Thank you, thank you, for your support in tough times, which may get even tougher. But I know there are many people I can trust to support the vision and mission God has given to us. Thanks be to God!
100 Reason for a Christmas Miracle
December 16, 2010
Call your senators right now about the DREAM Act.
Why? On Tuesday, I met 100 reasons: 100 young people brought to this country by their parents, from 100 different situations, to 100 different futures. But each one has something in common with all the others. They want to commit themselves to this country and to public service. Each one is already working hard, building their community, and planning for the future, but their options are limited. While for most of these young people America is the only home they have ever known, they don't have the papers to say so.
The DREAM Act can help fix this problem.
This Tuesday, pastors and faith leaders gathered at the United Methodist building on Capitol Hill for an "emergency prayer summit" and press conference on the importance of the DREAM Act. Afterward, we walked side by side with undocumented youth on a "Jericho walk" around the Senate office buildings. Every time I heard the story of one of these young people, I was moved. Often, legislation that Congress considers seems distant and far away. But in the small chapel where we gathered, I saw 100 young people who are waiting to hear their fate from the Senate. Will they have a path to participate fully in our society? To get a job? Raise a family? Serve their communities? Serve their country? Or will the Senate tell them that they will have to go back into the shadows or back to a country that they have never known?
My friend Rabbi David Saperstein, director of the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism, spoke to the young people gathered in the chapel:
"There is not a Jew in America [who] doesn't understand the pain of being denied the opportunity to live with full protection of laws in equality in the land in which we live. There is no clearer mandate in the Bible, there is no rule repeated more times than God's call to treat those who live in our midst, who cannot yet be fully citizens in this country, to treat them exactly as we treat ourselves, to treat them as though they are our own. In this time and place, that includes the right to have a path to citizenship. There is no clearer mandate that God has given us than that idea that is embodied in the DREAM Act. … You are America's children -- the children of this land, the children of this nation."
Advent is a season of hope. The DREAM Act has been before Congress for the past 10 years. The time for waiting is over. It is time for the Senate to give hope and a future to those 100 young people I met on Tuesday and the hundreds of thousands of other DREAMers across the United States.
Outside of a Senate office building, the students knelt on the freezing ground. We surrounded them with prayer and told them that their fight was our fight, their burden our burden, their hope our hope. If they are attacked, we all are attacked; if they are vilified, we all are vilified. Christ stood with those on the margins, and so will we.
Troy Jackson, a pastor from Ohio, told the group, "We are here today because our nation needs a conversion moment. … Conversions are beginning to happen in the evangelical church. … We need to pass those conversions on to the senators and the president here in Washington, D.C., so that they can pass this commonsense bill called the DREAM Act."
May your conversion lead to the turning around of our Senate. Call now.
It will take a miracle, but as Christians celebrating God-made-flesh who dwelt among us, that's exactly what we believe can happen.
Obama Should Have Fought Tax Cuts for the Rich
December 9, 2010
Time
and again, we heard Barack Obama on the campaign trail say that
Washington was broken, and he was running for President of the United
States to change it. He was right about our political system, and his
presidency has offered further proof. Washington is a broken system and
needs to be changed. But early on in the Obama presidency, the White
House decided that the system was even more broken than they had
imagined, special interests were even more powerful, and the influence
of money over everything in Washington was almost complete. So instead
of changing the "broken system," and "the ways of Washington," they
decided to work within it, and still tried to get some things done for
the people. That was a mistake. That was the moment the new president
should have called in leaders of social movements, including those from
the faith community, to strategize how to create enough pressure from
the outside to make real reform on the inside possible. But that never
happened.
At a Democratic National Committee fundraising dinner
in February 2010, Obama said, "Change is easy if you're just talking
about tinkering around the edges. Change is harder when you actually
dig in and try to deal with the structural problems that have impeded
our progress for too long." What Obama has found is that as long as the
system is broken, change is hard, even when you tinker around the
edges. We have seen tinkering around the edges when it comes to the
poor, our economic system, the war in Afghanistan, and immigration
reform. But these systems don't just need tinkering, they need deep
change.
Obama should have fought on taxes. The richest 2
percent of the country just got an extension of tax cuts they didn't
need at great cost to us all. There was GOP opposition, and Democrats
battling with one another, but President Obama should have been
fighting against the self-interests of the wealthiest Americans long
before this. He allowed those who benefit from these tax cuts and the
political allies they have bought in Congress to frame the debate and
set the terms of engagement. So Obama is now backed into a corner, and
just made a compromise that he thinks is the best deal possible when up
against the clock. He got some good things for working families in the
payroll tax cut, the extension of unemployment benefits, various
refundable tax credits, and the important middle class tax cut. But the
president is now presiding over the great redistribution of wealth
that has been going on for a very long time -- the redistribution of
wealth from the middle and the bottom, to the top of American society
-- and leaving us with the most economic inequality in American
history. This will only grow larger with the Obama "compromise."
If
Obama had he fought earlier, he could have ensured the protection of
small business owners, who are the primary job creators. Obama could
have focused the higher tax rates on the very rich
and protected those who are more in the middle and really creating
jobs. But now, most of the people who will be keeping their tax cuts
are not job creators. After all, how many jobs will be created by the
Goldman Sachs traders, or the hedge fund gamblers, or the celebrities
who dominate our lives? Almost none. On the contrary, they have been
the "job destroyers," and have wrecked this economy and the lives of so
many people.
Let's be clear here: At the root of the crisis
was just a handful of banks -- not the banking industry, not business
in general, but a handful of very rich people who took big and selfish
risks. They are already getting richer because of our taxpayer bailout,
and now we're giving them more tax breaks and estate tax bonanzas.
There is socialism in America, but it's only for the rich. Risk has
been socialized for some of the very richest people in the country, and
then, the "free market" pain is distributed to all the rest.
The
rich are too big to fail in America, while many in the rest of the
country really are failing. The president did want to keep some things
for average Americans in this compromise, but he lost the big battle a
long time ago when he did not fight the people whose greed,
recklessness, and utter lack of concern for the common good led us into
this terrible crisis. He waited too long to fight, to force a national
debate on economic fairness, and to counter the distortions of the
Republicans who clearly don't mind adding huge sums to the deficit
(almost a trillion dollars with the tax cuts) as long as it benefits
their wealthy patrons. The Republicans will now seek to reduce the
deficit by adding more pain to the rest of us -- especially those on
the bottom and increasingly shaky middle rungs of the economy. And now,
Obama and the rest of us are all backed into corners without a way out.
Our national economic philosophy is now to reward the casino gamblers on Wall Street
and to leave the majority of the country standing outside the casino
with a tin cup, hoping that the gamblers are at least big tippers. More
tax breaks and benefits for the very wealthiest people in America is
not only bad economics and bad policy; it is fundamentally immoral. In
a letter to the president signed by more than 100 religious leaders, we said just that.
So far, they haven't listened.
To Our Supporters: Thank You
"I thank my God every
time I think of you. In every prayer I utter, as I plead on your
behalf, I rejoice at the way you have all continually helped promote
the good news from the very first day."
I do give thanks
every time I think of the work we are able to do together. After every
speaking event we do, every conference or mobilization we convene, I am
blessed when people tell me what Sojourners has meant to them. I love
the feedback and emails we get after someone has seen or heard us in an
interview on television or radio, and it's always the same: "I feel
inspired -- to act."
Individual Christians
tell me how that inspiration has guided their vocation, ministry, life
choices, and family values. Churches tell me how that inspiration has
led them into their communities to do acts of compassion and social
justice in Jesus' name. National church leaders and local pastors have
told me for three decades how Sojourners helps teach them how to
fulfill the biblical mandate to be "prophetic" in their society. They
tell me we have given them the courage to "stand up." And now, a new
generation of Christians is coming of age and wants that same
inspiration -- more than half of our audiences are under 30. I spend a
good deal of my time mentoring "emerging leaders." So now we have the
opportunity to help shape the faith of the next generation.
This year, I feel the
hopeful expectation of Advent, but also the real stress of
end-of-the-year fundraising -- the burden of all leaders of faith-based
and nonprofit organizations -- trying to keep their mission alive and
well, and trying to protect the lives and families of those who so
tirelessly and sacrificially give themselves to that mission. But what
gives me both hope and strength is hearing the countless stories of
what Sojourners has meant to so many of you: how our work, day after
day, and year after year, has sustained your faith and ministries over
the years.
I don't want to sound
like National Public Radio, but if Sojourners has informed, supported,
encouraged, or inspired you, could you please, this Advent and
Christmas season, give a gift back to Sojourners?
I can't tell you how much, in this severely challenging economic time,
your gift would mean to us and to me. As NPR would say, you could give
us a gift and/or make us a pledge for the equivalent of a cup of coffee
a day, or a day's wages, or a tithe, or a bequest. They say, "if you
listen, help us pay for it." I say, if we help or inspire you as a
Christian, help us to continue to do that for you and so many others.
I am asking for your
help this Christmas. Your support, more than ever now, is what makes
Sojourners able to continue to inspire. For the inspiration you have
received and for the next generation: We need you now.
A personal story:
Over dinner last night, Joy and I spoke to our sons Luke and Jack about
the meaning of Advent as preparation for the coming of Christ. We
decided as a family to go through all our stuff -- toys, clothes, and
possessions -- to find the things we really don't need. Then we decided
to give each other just a few nice and simple gifts instead of a pile
of presents, and to focus on being as generous as we can this Christmas
in giving to poor and struggling families at home and around the world,
as well as to the Christian organizations who work so hard for social
justice. The kids seemed quite excited about this, and Jack started
going through his stuff right away.
I would suggest the
same to your family. In a time when so many people and so many
Christian organizations are really struggling, let's all go through the
"stuff" of our lives and find ways to be even more generous to the poor
and to those like Sojourners whose voice and work lifts up the biblical
call to social justice -- a ministry needed now more than ever.
Click here to give today.
Thank you,
Jim Wallis
This Thanksgiving, Enough is Enough
November 25, 2010
The political ads are finally off the air. (We can all give thanks for that!) But now there is a new wave of advertisements hitting all of us. Each one will give us a different reason to consume. Each one will put pressure on us to show our love, compassion, and thankfulness through buying more stuff with money we don't have on things we probably don't need. I've already heard a barrage of commercials on TV and radio telling me that I don't even have to wait for Black Friday to start my spending this year. "Those who care, consume," they say.
That message is clear -- and clearly wrong.
The pervasiveness of our consumer culture has been met with some backlash. "Buy Nothing Day" has grown into movement that competes with the sometimes deadly crowds of "Black Friday." "The Advent Conspiracy" has challenged Christians to take Advent as an opportunity to show the world the compassion of Christ and not be conformed to the consumptive patterns of the world.
I wrote in my most recent book, Rediscovering Values, about our need to replace the maxim of "greed is good" with the value of "enough is enough." This is a challenge because the advertisements we see telling us to consume are often fundamentally at odds with the teachings of Jesus. The relentless pressure of advertising tells us that "there is never enough," and that you should "worry" constantly about what you eat and drink, what you wear, whether your future is secure, and more. But Jesus says the exact opposite. They say, "Worry all the time!" But Christ says, "Don't worry!"
The pressure we feel doesn't just come from the ads we get in our inboxes or see on television. All of us have family and friends who are going to be doing a lot of shopping. If a friend goes out and spends money on us, we feel guilty if we don't reciprocate at roughly the same level. What's worse is if someone gets us a gift and we don't get them anything at all. The problem is not giving gifts. Giving gifts becomes a problem when the exchange of stuff replaces building relationships.
How should we respond to these pressures during this season? Here are a few thoughts:
First, try and make decisions about gift giving with friends and family. Get everybody on the same page before all the spending happens. You could try sending around this column to get the conversation going. Your values, not commercials, should inform how you show your gratefulness to those you love.
Second, try some alternative gift giving this year. Sojourners magazine has a new Christmas Giving Guide that you can use to help make those decisions. These are businesses and non-profits that are committed to a mission that makes sure each dollar you give or spend has a positive impact on the world.
And finally, as we think about Thanksgiving and look forward to Christmas, let's take stock of our lives and priorities and make sure they are being driven by our values and relationships and not just our culture of consumption.
Three Steps Toward a Balanced Budget
November 18, 2010
There has been a lot of talk about deficits lately. This is for good reasons. Our personal and national relationship to debt is indeed a moral issue. Leaving our children to pay the bills for excessive spending cannot be justified. But, if a budget really is a moral document, how we reduce the deficit is also a moral issue. Our budget should not be balanced on the backs of the poor. Cuts should not come from the services and programs that people rely on now more than ever. The reality is that we have a lot of wasteful spending in our federal budget, but most of it does not come from things that help the most vulnerable people in our society. I still believe that targeted investment can help spur job growth and lessen the length of our downturn, but at the same time, it is necessary to examine the places we can cut spending. The good news is that in three easy steps, we can head much closer to a balanced budget and quickly reduce the deficit to a more sustainable level. There is an added bonus: We can also significantly reduce extreme poverty.
So here are the three steps:
First, it's time to cut needless military spending. The Pentagon currently takes up more than half of our country's discretionary spending. This does not include the billions spent on other military related expenditures or most of our spending on homeland security. Defense Secretary Gates has identified $100 billion in cuts, and the recent report from the co-chairs of the deficit commission shows that they were also able to come up with $100 billion in savings. If by 2013 we reduce the number of troops in Afghanistan and Iraq to 30,000, by 2015 another $86 billion could be saved from the deficit. Here is more good news: Those are the small proposals for where the military budget could be cut. Reps. Barney Frank and Ron Paul came up with a plan that they say would leave our country just as safe but save us $960 billion by 2020! Even with these cuts, we would still be by far the world's most dominant military. When you list the countries in the world by order of their military expenditures, the United States tops the list and spends more than the next 13 countries combined.
Second, return tax rates for the wealthy back to Clinton-era levels of 39.6 percent from the Bush top level of 35 percent. Under Dwight D. Eisenhower, the top marginal tax rate was 91 percent -- that was clearly too high. From JFK until Reagan it was 70 percent and that was still too high. But, when Warren Buffet declares it wrong that his secretary pays a larger portion of her income in taxes than he does as a multi- billionaire, our tax system is now clearly imbalanced. There are now more millionaires living in New York City than there were in 2007 before the crash. Maybe they could pitch in.
Third, eliminate farm subsidies. These subsidies manipulate market prices so that farmers in developing countries often can't sell their goods in their own country, let alone compete in a global market. These subsidies keep some of the world's poorest people in poverty, while primarily enriching large agribusinesses in our own country. It's time to do the right thing and get rid of them. Simply eliminating these subsidies would save taxpayers the equivalent of getting rid of every last earmark from our budget.
This past Sunday, the New York Times put a "budget puzzle" up on their website. It lets you make some decisions on how you would balance the budget. There are many proposals out there that aren't included in the exercise, and it's not a perfect representation of the choices that need to be made, but it is a useful tool for figuring out our priorities. I believe that a budget is a moral document, and based on the values I hold from scripture, the decisions we need to make are easy. When I checked off the list with these priorities, I solved the puzzle. So, do the New York Times budget puzzle or create other tools to enable you, your friends, your small group, or your church to take a long hard look at the moral choices involved in deficit reduction. Let's create more ideas that would help us all be more responsible with our debt. Think about your values and priorities, and then try it yourself.
It Takes A Movement: The Next Steps
November 11, 2010
It is always appropriate and necessary for the faith community to question and challenge political leadership on the biggest moral issues -- indeed it is our prophetic vocation to do so. That means lifting up the now growing rates of poverty in America and around the world, even when both parties only want to talk about the middle class. The plight of undocumented immigrants and their families unites almost all sectors of the faith community. The younger generation of the faithful is insisting on the urgency of "creation care" of the environment and the threat of climate change, especially to the poorest people around the globe. People of faith across the political spectrum also want to make serious progress on reducing the number of abortions in America -- not with symbolic amendments or criminalizing desperate and tragic choices -- but by preventing unwanted pregnancies and supporting low-income women. There is much work to be done in promoting healthy families; not by scapegoating gays and lesbians or bullying gay teens, but by creating policies that build a culture of support for families. Increased numbers of religious leaders are also ready to challenge the ethics of endless and failed wars of occupation, which have yet to seriously reduce the real threats of terrorism but have killed too many people.
It is not enough to talk about what President Obama should be doing; but instead we should be talking about what a movement can be doing to clear the space for change and provide energy and pressure on both the Congress and the White House. Only serious public education and mobilization will move the country forward on the "big vision" above. The "outside strategy" must be strong for the "inside strategy " to finally be successful -- and only then will access give way to influence. Learning the lessons of the midterm elections means not just wondering what Obama will do next; but also asking what we will do.
I have learned in the last two years that changes in Washington, Wall Street, and the country, are indeed much harder to accomplish than anyone expects. The combination of entrenched politics (on both sides); hugely influential special interests; the growing power of money in politics; the 24/7 assault of ideologically driven media machines; and a still-passive electorate that believes voting is the only requirement of citizenship -- all have contributed to where we now find ourselves.
Instead of just sitting back and watching how things go, an empowered new electorate must push the country deeper into our best shared values, understand the need for social movements in making social change, and act to hold both political sides accountable to trying to actually solve the country's greatest challenges, instead of just winning and keeping power.
We need to construct a new "moral center" in American politics. Yes, the rising deficit is a moral issue, but dealing with it in a moral way is also important. We cannot cut the deficit using methods that would hurt our most vulnerable and least powerful people. Yes, defeating terrorism is also a noble cause, but being willing to challenge the enormous human and financial costs of failed military solutions is also a just cause. And the faith community will always be lifting up the biblical priority of the poor, the weak, the sick, the oppressed, the left out and left behind, and always the children; and we will look for allies on both sides of the political aisle wherever we can find them.
Real social change depends more on a return to core values than a partisan victory by either political side. It means lifting up the fundamental personal and social virtues in our individual choices, family lives, community involvement, and engaged citizenship. For people of faith, it means leading by example from our congregations and actually doing the things we say we believe in.
Neither the left nor the right has the answers now, though both will continue to say that it does. So we have to focus on the spiritual and moral values that bring us together; that choose the common good over private gain, inclusiveness over intolerance, civility over shouting, long term over short term, integrity over celebrity, justice over excuses, morality over expediency, stewardship over consumption, truth over spin, patient persistence over immediate results, and finally, right over wrong.
These are the values that work for our personal lives, for teaching our children, for leading our congregations, for changing our communities, for holding politicians accountable, and for creating the social movements that make a difference.
We've learned that making change is harder than we think; now it's time to go deeper.
[Part 2 of this series, "Why Politics is Frozen Solid," will be available on the God's Politics blogHelp us make it happen. tomorrow. Sojourners is building a movement to inspire hope, over fear. That's the message that must echo in 2010. ]
It Takes A Movement: A Post-Election Analysis
November 4, 2010
[Editor's Note: Today is the first installment of a six-part series by Jim Wallis reflecting on the past two years and painting a post-election vision for people of faith and Sojourners. We encourage you to read the essay, engage in conversation with others, and support Sojourners in making this vision happen.]
Inauguration Day 2009 was highlighted for our family by a visit from Dr. Vincent Harding, the eminent African-American historian, and a member of Martin Luther King Jr.'s inner circle during the Southern freedom movement. Despite health concerns and the dangerous weather, "Uncle Vincent," as my two young boys call him, traveled across the country to witness this moment of a history in which he had been so deeply involved. As we stood on the mall clutching our inauguration tickets in our mittens, Harding said, "It was a movement that started all this."
Do you remember how cold it was in Washington for the inauguration of President Barack Obama? Yet, it was one of the warmest days in memory: in the way two million people treated each other on the Mall, in the hope that filled the air around the country, in the sense of history being made with America's first black president, in the expectation that the country was about to move to a new place of change out of the grip of a deep recession, and the promise of a generational political shift. How ironically warm it seemed on that distant January day now stands in sharp contrast with the cold and very angry political atmosphere that was evidenced in the midterm elections.
In politics there is always a spiritual choice to be made -- to choose hope or fear. Leaders can build movements by appealing to a vision of what our country can be or by painting a picture of whom to blame and what to be afraid of. Obama won in November of 2008, in the midst of a recession, bank failures, and two wars, by capturing the political narrative which spoke to our values as a country and by riding a movement that had reason to hope and was ready to work for change. But the new president lost the narrative, and the "movement" is now on the other side of the political aisle. A strong values narrative attracted many in 2008, including many religious voters who had long eluded the Democrats. But now, many seem to have lost faith.
Contrary to conventional wisdom, President Barack Obama, a Democrat, reached farther out to the faith community than many Republicans have, including his predecessor George W. Bush -- both in his campaign and the first two years of his administration. While voters have often viewed Republicans as the party most friendly to religion, polling by Public Religion Research Institute showed that most viewed Obama and McCain as equally friendly to faith in that election. Indeed, highly energized and predominantly religious black voters overcame their cynicism to believe that another America might be possible, faith-inspired Hispanic voters dramatically shifted their allegiances, Evangelical and Catholic voters decided to break with their recent past (or their parents) because of what they heard from Obama. They were all drawn to a political leader who seemed to want to move past old political divisions and boundaries, and was not afraid to identify the moral issues at stake in politics.
But if you compare 2010 exit polls to 2006, Democrats performed 14 points worse with white Protestants, 14 points worse with white Evangelicals, and 20 points worse with Catholics. Compared to 2008, Democrats did 10 points worse with white Protestants, 14 points worse with white Evangelicals, and 20 points worse with Catholics. That is quite a swing vote.
Given many obstacles, administration advocates believe that Obama has a two-year record of great accomplishments, including some things that his predecessors failed to do. He thinks so too, and points to historic health care legislation, the most serious financial regulatory reform since the Great Depression, no energy bill but increased fuel standards, new student loan programs, unnoticed investments in infrastructure and clean energy, a much expanded national service agenda, and a plan for educational reform which we haven't seen in 30 years. Obama wonders why people don't see all that, which he calls "the most successful administration in generations in moving the progressive agenda forward." But Obama's legislative victories inside the beltway have clearly not connected to the everyday lives of too many Americans or to their core values. Many families who are struggling and afraid don't believe that Washington or Wall Street cares about them or is really with them. And they showed their anger at the polls, or their disillusionment by not even showing up.
Four years ago, and two years ago, people voted decisively for change; and now, in a shift no one could have predicted after the last election, voters have just voted for change again in 2010. And chilling polls show that the vast majority of the country, this time, voted against rather than for particular candidates or policies. The Republican leadership made it clear they were running a campaign that was meant as a referendum on Obama's first two years in office. The change promised in 2008 never came about in the minds of many across the political spectrum -- on the left, the right, and the center. The new president has been up against almost insurmountable odds, especially from all that he inherited, or as he puts it, the "cards we were dealt." But, from the results we just saw and the Republican priority of making Obama a one-term President, it clearly seems that many in the country would seem to disagree with the White House assessment. What happened?
[Part 2 of this series, "Why Politics is Frozen Solid," will be available on the God's Politics blogHelp us make it happen. tomorrow. Sojourners is building a movement to inspire hope, over fear. That's the message that must echo in 2010. ]
We're Sick of the Attack Ads
October 28, 2010
Dear
Candidate, Party Organization, PAC, Super-PAC or any committee that
happens to be contributing to the non-stop political ads that have
flooded my TV:
Give us all a break! We're sick of the attacks, the innuendos, the outright lies, and the prophecies of doom if the other candidate gets elected;
and the same commercials over and over again. There is one week left
before the election. Instead of filling the airwaves with noise, how
about you give us all a chance to clear our heads and do some thinking?
I'm pretty sure you have said everything you have to say and made all
the arguments you can make. The only things the negative ads and
robocalls are accomplishing at this point are annoying lots of people
and wasting lots of money.
Every time I see a negative ad
these days, I think one thing: What a waste! In such tough economic
times, I cringe at all the money being spent on throwing mud at the
other side. In fact, that gives me an idea: All of you who keep making
arguments about why we should never trust the other side with our tax
dollars -- how about you show us that you can be responsible with your
own money now?
What if you took down all your negative ads,
stopped the angry and poisonous mailings, cut it out with all of the
robocalls, and took all the money you saved and gave it to the poor?
There
are a lot of families hurting out there right now. If you want us to
believe that you'll help them after you get elected, how about you
start now? Take New Hampshire, for example. The Union Leader reported
that $21 million will be spent on the race for a Senate seat during the
primaries and general election -- and that's a conservative estimate.
To put it in perspective, that adds up to $15.85 per resident or $33.23
for every expected voter. This is also enough money to send every
unemployed New Hampshire resident a check for $555 or feed 1,000
homeless families of four for 14 years and 8 months.
Across
the nation, House and Senate candidates' spending will exceed $2
billion. With a week left to go, spending by outside independent groups
is already at $258 million. How many foreclosures could that money
prevent? How many hungry children could be fed? How many unemployed
people could be assisted?
We all know the reasons why no
campaign manager or consultant would ever let this happen. The huge
amounts of money being spent on campaigns and, specifically, on the
most noxious ads is already disturbing; but when compared to what else
that money could be spent on, it becomes downright offensive.
Ads
at their best can be used to clarify and inform voters of policies and
priorities at stake in an election. At their worst, they are used only
to confuse, distort, and manipulate. Unfortunately, it just might be
time to say to all those aspiring to national leadership, if you don't
have anything nice (or at least not mean) to say, maybe you shouldn't
say anything at all.
Oh, I know they're not going to take
their ads down, so take my request/plea/demand to do so as a protest
vote against the whole system that now distorts our very democracy.
Many of us are just sick of it.
Christians and Bullying: Standing with Gays and Lesbians
October 21, 2010
My mother used to give us kids two instructions:
1. If there is a kid on the playground that nobody else is playing with -- you play with them.
2. If there is a bully picking on other kids -- you be the one to stand up to him or her.
Those two principles have served me well. And I can almost hear my mother's voice sometimes … like now.
On Wednesday, I wore purple. I was speaking at North Park University, an evangelical Christian college, with Tim King, my colleague and a former student there. I was pleased to see them passing out purple ribbons and announcing why just before chapel.
So I joined thousands of others across the country who believe that bullying should never be tolerated at any time, at any place, or for any reason. I wore purple to commemorate "Spirit Day," in memory of the many young people who have taken their own lives as a result of harassment and bullying inflicted on them because they are gay. I wore purple because I am a follower of Christ.
A bully is a person who habitually intimidates, harasses, or commits violence against those who are smaller, weaker, or more vulnerable because of their "outsider" status. A bully stands in opposition to all of what Christ taught and lived. There is broad opposition within the Christian community to bullying, especially the sort that leads to the deaths we have seen as of late. This sort of harassment is indefensible. And the stories of young kids being so bullied that they take their own lives has been heartbreaking to hear.
But, to paraphrase Christ, if you oppose bullying, what reward will you get? Isn't everybody against it? If all you do is say that you shouldn't harass someone until they kill themselves, are you really doing more than others?
The fact that bullies target gay and lesbian people should mean that Christians give extra attention to protecting and standing up for them. The fact that any community or group of people is regularly the target of harassment and hate means Christians should be on the front line of defense against any who would attack.
But, most bullies don't know that they are bullies. A bully might think that his or her words don't matter that much or affect others that greatly. A bully might think that he or she is being funny or just kidding around. A bully might think that he or she is just saying what everyone is thinking or speaking out about what everyone thinks.
There is disagreement within the Christian community when it comes to issues of human sexuality. But, there should be a united front against all who would disrespect, disparage, or denigrate anyone created in the image of God.
I hope you will join me in prayer for the family and friends of every young person who has taken their own lives. I hope you will join me in a message of hope for any person who has been teased, harassed, or bullied by another because of his or her sexual orientation. More than that, no matter what your views of homosexuality are, I hope you will join with me in standing in the way between bullies and their victims.
At an evangelical Christian college in the Midwest, there was a lot of purple yesterday. And the airline security official who checked my boarding pass saw my purple ribbon and said, "I see you're wearing purple today, that's a good thing."
Last week, I was taking my boys to school and raised the issue of the bullying and gay teen suicides to see what they had heard about it. My 12-year-old Luke, of course, knew all about it; while 7-year-old Jack hadn't heard yet. But Jack spoke of a boy on the playground of his school who was sometimes a bully to others. Before I could say a word, Luke said to his little brother, "Now Jack, you need to talk to him. He will respect and listen to you because you are an athlete, a good student, and very popular. Kids who are strong need to be the ones who stand up for those who get bullied. Jack, part of our job is to make sure nobody gets bullied at our school. Understand?" Jack said, "Yes," and I could just feel his grandmother smiling.
MLK and the "Progressive Hunter"
October 14, 2010
Take
ships as an example. Although they are so large and are driven by
strong winds, they are steered by a very small rudder wherever the
pilot wants to go. Likewise the tongue is a small part of the body, but
it makes great boasts. Consider what a great forest is set on fire by a
small spark. -- James 3:4-6
The passage from James' letter
warns that our words, for better or worse, can turn a ship or light a
forest ablaze. At this point in the campaign season, every time I see a
political ad I mute my TV or change the station. I know I'm not alone.
But instead of just waiting for November 3, tell the Democrats, Republicans, and the Tea Party that what we want is truth and civility. Instead of name calling, there should be a discussion about ideas and solutions for the greatest challenges of today.
As
I watch the degeneration of political rhetoric in campaign ads and
cable television, and think about our Truth and Civility Election
Watch, Martin Luther King Jr.'s "Nonviolence Pledge" reminds me why
this is all so important. Here it is:
1. As you prepare to march, meditate on the life and teachings of Jesus.
2. Remember the nonviolent movement seeks justice and reconciliation -- not victory.
3. Walk and talk in the manner of love; for God is love.
4. Pray daily to be used by God that all men and women might be free.
5. Sacrifice personal wishes that all might be free.
6. Observe with friends and foes the ordinary rules of courtesy.
7. Perform regular service for others and the world.
8. Refrain from violence of fist, tongue, and heart.
9. Strive to be in good spiritual and bodily health.
10. Follow the directions of the movement leaders and of the captains on demonstrations.
King
clearly connects the violence of the tongue, fist, and heart. Walking
and talking in the manner of love is required. Compare King's
admonition to seek "justice and reconciliation -- not victory" with the
political victory-at-any-cost strategies and methodologies that are
heating up just three weeks before the midterm election. The attempt is
not just to disagree with one's opponents (a perfectly legitimate and,
indeed, healthy activity during the democratic processes of elections),
but to demonize them; not to treat them as adversaries but as enemies.
MLK's pledge should be a spiritual exercise for all of those on the
campaign trail.
I was pleased to see the MLK nonviolence pledge
on Glenn Beck's website, and to hear that he learned about the pledge
during his preparation for his speech at the Lincoln Memorial on August
28. But I cringe when I hear him boast about being a "progressive
hunter," and when I hear Beck regularly demonize the people he
disagrees with.
I read an alarming report last night on a recent interview with Byron Williams,
who was arrested after a July 18 shootout with the police. He had a car
full of guns and planned to kill people at the Tides Foundation and
ACLU in San Francisco. Williams said in this interview that he sees
Glenn Beck as his "teacher," and that he was agitated by the virulent
things his teacher had to say about the people at Tides. While it is
unfair to blame Beck for everything his audience might do, it isn't
unfair to ask Beck to make the connection that King did between the
violence of the tongue and that of the fist, and to take responsibility
for how he speaks about those with whom he disagrees.
On a
personal level, I was reminded of that connection in a conversation
with my 12-year-old son, Luke. Last summer, I shared the story of how a
far-right radio station and some local churches in Wisconsin tried to
get me disinvited from speaking at a Christian youth festival there.
All of their attack lines were right off of Glenn Beck's blackboard --
that I was a "communist" and that listening to me would put high school
students attending the festival in "spiritual peril." Despite their
confrontation and intimidation, the festival hosts stood firm with my
invitation, and I traveled to Wisconsin. The evening went very well as
I talked about Jesus and our commitment to the poor, the response of
the kids was very positive, and many parents (even very conservative
ones) thanked the festival leaders for standing up against the intense
political pressure from the Far Right.
But the day I left, my
son Luke asked this question: "Dad, do the people out there who are mad
at you have guns?" To be honest, I had to tell him that some of them
probably did in Wisconsin, but I was sure that I would be fine. After I
spoke on that Friday night, the first call I received was from Luke,
just wanting to know if everything had gone all right and that I was
okay. The fear in my son's heart was not unjustified, but such things
shouldn't be happening in America today -- but they are.
Let's remind national political leadership that their words matter -- and that we are listening.
7 Steps to Civility this Election Season
October 7, 2010
Last week, I asked you all to tell FOX News that when it comes to truth and civility, they can do better.
Thousands of you did. You aren't the only ones who see things getting
worse than ever before. This week, a group of more than 130 former
legislators, both Republicans and Democrats, released a letter urging
for civility and encouraging candidates, once elected, to focus on
cooperation to face our country's greatest challenges.The letter said:
None
of us shrank from partisan debates while in Congress or from the
partisan contests getting there. During our time in Congress, partisans
on the other side may have been our opponents on some bills and our
adversaries on some issues. They were not, however, the enemy.
They
point the finger at both parties for this breakdown; how legislators
hold on to "wedge issues" to run on, as opposed to finding
common-ground solutions. The letter also recognized the outside forces
at work:
The divisive and mean-spirited way debate often
occurs inside Congress is encouraged and repeated outside: on cable
news shows, in blogs, and in rallies. Members who far exceed the bounds
of normal and respectful discourse are not viewed with shame but are
lionized, treated as celebrities, rewarded with cable television
appearances, and enlisted as magnets for campaign fund-raisers.
These public servants are no longer in office but do us all a great public service. They are sounding the alarm about the direction of our public discourse.
This past spring, a diverse group of more than 100 religious leaders signed their names and committed to a "Civility Covenant."
We joined together recognizing that too often we have reflected the
political divisions of our culture rather than the unity we have in the
body of Christ. We came together to urge those who claim the name of
Christ to "put away from you all bitterness and wrath and anger and
wrangling and slander, together with all malice, and be kind to one
another, tender-hearted, forgiving one another, as God in Christ has
forgiven you" (Ephesians 4:31-32).
We made seven biblically
based commitments that I believe are seven steps we all need to take
for truth and civility today. These are seven commitments that
Christians should carry with them as a reminder for themselves and a
challenge to others. Candidates need to know that voters do not just
care about who wins, but how they win. The Civility Covenant states:
1.
We commit that our dialogue with each other will reflect the spirit of
the scriptures, where our posture toward each other is to be "quick to
listen, slow to speak, and slow to become angry" (James 1:19).
2.
We believe that each of us, and our fellow human beings, are created in
the image of God. The respect we owe to God should be reflected in the
honor and respect we show to each other in our common humanity,
particularly in how we speak to each other. "With the tongue we bless
the Lord and [God], and with it we curse those who are made in the
likeness of God ... this ought not to be so" (James 3:9-10).
3.
We pledge that when we disagree, we will do so respectfully, without
falsely impugning the other's motives, attacking the other's character,
or questioning the other's faith, and recognizing in humility that in
our limited, human opinions, "we see but a poor reflection as in a
mirror" (1 Corinthians 13:12). We will therefore "be completely humble
and gentle; be patient, bearing with one another in love" (Ephesians
4:2).
4. We will ever be mindful of the language we use in
expressing our disagreements, being neither arrogant nor boastful in
our beliefs: "Before destruction one's heart is haughty, but humility
goes before honor" (Proverbs 18:12).
5. We recognize that we
cannot function together as citizens of the same community, whether
local or national, unless we are mindful of how we treat each other in
pursuit of the common good, in the common life we share together. Each
of us must therefore "put off falsehood and speak truthfully to his
neighbor, for we are all members of one body" (Ephesians 4:25).
6.
We commit to pray for our political leaders -- those with whom we may
agree, as well as those with whom we may disagree. "I urge that
supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made -- for
kings and all who are in high positions" (1 Timothy 2:1-2).
7.
We believe that it is more difficult to hate others, even our
adversaries and our enemies, when we are praying for them. We commit to
pray for each other, those with whom we agree and those with whom we
may disagree, so that together we may strive to be faithful witnesses
to our Lord, who prayed "that they may be one" (John 17:22).
We need to push back against the fear-mongering and name-calling and lead with our values.
Here are some ideas:
Send
this covenant to all the candidates running for Congress, Senate, and
governorship in your districts and states. Submit the covenant to their
websites. Take it to their forums, debates, and rallies and publicly
challenge candidates to sign it.
Send letters to the editors of
your local newspapers calling for civility and lifting up this
covenant. Contact your TV and radio stations to tell them you expect
more from them.
Finally, take the covenant to church. Give it to
the members of your congregation. Give it to your pastor. Ask your
pastor to preach on the need for civility in this election season. It's
up to us now.
Beck, Nazis, and Civil Dialogue
September 30, 2010
Glenn Beck can do better. FOX News can do better. When it comes to upholding truth and having civil dialogues, let's be honest, we all can do better. Last Thursday, I asked you to take up the challenge and say, "I disagree with you, but I'm pretty sure you're not Hitler." When the next day Glenn Beck told his audience that I was "dangerous," mischaracterized what I believe, and then took that mischaracterization and said that it "always leads to mass death," my first desire was not to be civil. When his next step was to leap to the Nazi corruption of churches in Germany, and to suggest that I and "progressive Christians" were like the Nazis, I got angry.
The Bible says, in your anger, do not sin. So, I took a deep breath and decided with my staff that it was time we give FOX News some encouragement. How do we respond with truth in a civil manner? We decided that we should tell FOX News that they can do better than this. If you think FOX can do better, click here and send its CEO an email.
At the end of August, at his rally at the Lincoln Memorial, on the anniversary of Dr. King's "I Have a Dream Speech," Beck seemed to want to take a higher road. But this latest and absurd violation of both truth and civility takes him back to his habitual low road, and, from his brief stint on the Mall as a would-be evangelist, back to an, "entertainer," as he has previously called himself. This repeated poisoning of our civil discourse is not entertaining at all, but more and more serious and alarming.
Unfortunately, Beck has not accepted my invitation to have a dialogue about the real meaning of "social justice," which he so regularly maligns. But, some of the topics he tackles are ones that concern us all. The segment on Friday was about church and state issues. So, in my own narrative form that I will try to keep civil, I'd like to dialogue with some of the things Beck said on Friday.
First he said, "There is a fundamental misunderstanding of the Tea Party and small government people, that immediately goes into church and state …. You can't have the evil church because those evil Christians are going to gobble up the state and then the next thing you know you're going to have to have communion, you know, five days [a] week, otherwise you'll go to jail. And I don't know what they think is going to happen."
Glenn's right about that mischaracterization of religious conservatives by some on the political left. I believe that most Christians in this country aren't interested in legislating their religion. We saw that misunderstanding again, and a distortion of someone's positions, when Democrat Alan Grayson ran a recent attack ad against his opponent, Republican Dan Webster. The ad called him "Taliban Dan," and said, "Religious fanatics try to take away our freedom in Afghanistan, in Iran, and right here in Central Florida." I don't know Webster and I might not agree with him on everything, but I doubt he wants to set up a Taliban-like religious dictatorship in the United States.
But then Beck fundamentally mischaracterizes progressive Christians and others. His latest attack last Friday said, "That's why Jim Wallis is so dangerous. All the preachers that surround the president, they are progressives and they are big government progressives. When you combine church and state, and you take a -- you take a big government and you combine it with the church, to get people to do the things that the state wants you to do, it always ends in mass death."
And that is really ridiculous. First of all, there is not a group of preachers who "surround the president." But for Beck to accuse all the preachers or religious leaders who have advised Obama on any issue of being like the Nazi corruption of the church and on a course that "ends in mass death" is the worst kind of civil poison. It's just not right at all, and would be laughable if such irresponsible and hateful talk were a laughing matter.
My own view of the government has been heavily influenced by two passages in the Bible -- Romans 13 and Revelation 13. In Romans 13, the apostle Paul talks about the intended positive role of governments. It teaches that government is God's servant to do us good, to reward good and punish evil, to uphold a just and lawful society. It even encourages us to pay our taxes! But, I have also been arrested 22 times for protesting the government's policies because the government isn't always good, and I would remind Beck that his new hero, Dr. King, was arrested many more times than that. I interpret the Revelation 13 description of the "beast" to be one about the Roman Empire and any other government that has become totalitarian, including Nazi Germany. But the leading opponents of Hitler's totalitarianism were social-justice Christians in Germany such as Dietrich Bonhoeffer. Revelation 13 presents a scary picture of oppression in which the people worship the "beast" instead of God; and all of the Christian leaders I know who have given any advice to President Obama would agree, as would the Christian leaders I know who did not vote for Obama. I believe that at its best, the church should function as a conscience for the state, and not be its cheerleader. Nor should religious leaders be chaplains for any political party, but should instead offer prophetic words to the entire system.
I read Beck's newest attacks from New Zealand while preparing to speak at a Salvation Army conference where everybody believes in social justice. Tomorrow I will attend a World Vision conference about the same topic. And Glenn's own religion, the Mormon Church, has invited me to come to Salt Lake City so they can take me around and show me their "social justice" ministries. Beck needs to learn what social justice really means and, in the meantime, must stop suggesting that the Salvation Army, World Vision, and the Mormon Church are all "communists" and "Nazis."
Beck and I both agree that Christians have a call to be personally charitable, but I also believe that the principles we see in the Bible and taught by Jesus mean that the government has responsibilities to the poor as well.
Beck said, "I'll get up from my church, and I will walk out when my church starts to tell me who to vote for or how to vote. I want my church to teach me correct principles and then I can figure it out."
Me too. I'm not in the business of endorsing candidates. Good Christians will never all vote the same way, and I think that's a good thing. In fact, I've written a few books on this topic. Maybe they could help Beck in his continuing theological education. So why doesn't Beck want to talk, instead of just erupting all the time?
Glenn Beck, you can do better than this.
This Election Season, Let's Focus on Truth and Civility
September 23, 2010
Let's try it. For the next six weeks before the election, let's focus on truth and civility.
Why? Because it's getting worse. With the campaign season in full swing, the level of our public discourse has hit new lows. From politicians to commentators, I keep hearing the same thing, "We've never seen it get this bad." And some of them are clearly helping to make things worse. The "birther" movement is alive and well, with its evangelists trying to convince the American public that Obama has stolen his Social Security number. Others are trying to convince voters nationally that the biggest issue on the ballot this year is that Delaware Senate hopeful Christine O'Donnell told Bill Maher that she "dabbled in witchcraft" before she became a Christian in college. Democrats are all described as "radicals" and "socialists," while all Republicans are described as "crazy" and "wingnuts."
Truth and civility have often been casualties of elections; but this election and its aftermath promise to be the worst in a very long time. We saw things get pretty ugly in the last presidential election. After his acceptance speech, I defended Barack Obama against real vitriol by holding up examples of Christians who disagreed with him but did so respectfully. I defended Sarah Palin from what I saw as unfair and unnecessary obsession with her wardrobe and rumors about her family. But as the midterm elections get closer, things seem to be getting worse.
How did we get to this place? Last year, I interviewed Michael Sandel, a Harvard professor and author of the book Justice: What’s the Right Thing To Do? He said, "I think the reason for the breakdown of civil discourse is not that we have too much moral argument in politics, but that we have too little. What we really have are ideological food fights. Assertions hurled back and forth on cable news …. But what we don't have is a serious engagement with the competing moral and spiritual convictions that citizens bring to public life." We don't need to give up our values, water them down, or throw out our convictions to have civil discourse. It is exactly these beliefs that allow us to engage in real dialogue. (Watch the interview with Sandel to hear why.)
On the blog, through personal commitments, and through online advocacy Sojourners is going to try and lift up positive examples of civil discourse and call out failures in this area. Civil debate and disagreement is possible. A good example was a debate Richard Land and I had at the conservative Family Research Council's "Values Voter Summit" last fall. Another example is when I was joined this spring by Christian leaders across the theological and political spectrum, including Chuck Colson and other political conservatives, in signing a "Civility Covenant," each signer, including thousands of you, committed to civil discourse in his or her life and church.
Between now and the election, I think there are three lessons of particular importance.
First, we Christians are politically different, but unified in Christ. Too often the church has reflected the political divisions of our culture rather than the unity we have in the body of Christ. The church in the United States can offer a message of hope and reconciliation to a nation that is deeply divided by political and cultural differences. We can disagree, but how we disagree with one another is a question of our witness for Christ.
Second, we should speak the truth and seek it. It is morally irresponsible to forward "rumor emails" without first checking the facts. Too often we focus on media caricatures of political figures. It might be the belief that Obama is a "secret Muslim" or that Sarah Palin actually said, "I can see Russia from my house." (That was actually said by Tina Fey during her parody of Palin.)
Third, we must hold to the statement, “out of many, one.” “E pluribus unum” was not an admission of weakness but a proclamation of strength. The health of our democracy depends not only upon the outcomes of elections but also how those elections happen. We should all be able to say, in the words of Jon Stewart, "I disagree with you, but I'm pretty sure you're not Hitler." In Sojourners magazine this past December, I wrote about the urgent need for civility. Today, the need is even greater. I hope you will join us over the next six weeks as we model civil discourse, and call our media, politicians, and nation to accountability. Truth and civility are too important to lose.
No One is "Illegal"
September 16, 2010
Today
is a day of hope for immigration reform. More than 500 immigration
activists and faith leaders have gathered in Washington, D.C., to call
on Congress to act on immigration reform. They represent the tens of
thousands of you reading SojoMail today who, over the past few years,
have taken action on immigration reform. It has been a long road, and a
tough fight. But your actions make a difference. Due, in part, to this
ongoing pressure, Senator Harry Reid announced yesterday that the DREAM
Act will be voted on as early as next week. The DREAM Act is
bi-partisan legislation that allows young people who have been raised
in the United States, excelled in school, and then pursued higher
education or service in the military to have a pathway to citizenship.
Committed
Christians will always disagree on public policy issues, but I have
been encouraged by the broad spectrum of leaders who have found common
ground on the moral issues at stake in reforming our immigration
system. If you are still uncertain as to how immigration connects to
your faith, I encourage you to take a look at some of Sojourners' many
resources on the topic, which include a primer on how our immigration system currently works, a study guide for your church, and a movie guide for discussing faith and immigration reform.
To all of you who have committed yourself to this issue, I now share
with you the words of hope that I shared with those who came to D.C.
today:
For people of faith
there is a moral responsibility to hope. That's always our job, even
when the political winds are against us. Those of us who build our
lives on hope have a calling, and a vocation, to spread that hope
because, when we do prevail in the cause of justice, it is always hope
which has kept our hearts alive until victory finally comes. Today is
not just about the current political realities of comprehensive
immigration reform; it is about being evangelists for hope -- it is
about putting our faith into action. Our faith is always personal, but
never private. Today is about personal faith and public action.
We are here today
because there is no such thing as an illegal human being. We are all,
first, children of God, endowed with the image of our creator and
deserving of respect. In the first two chapters of the Bible, we learn
that it is in God's image that we are created, and in the first two
paragraphs of the Declaration of Independence, we hear that equality
does not come from government but from God. It does not find its source
in any law or constitution, it does not come from the color of your
skin or the land in which you were born, but from the truth that should
be self-evident -- that all men and women are created equal; that they
are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights; that
among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. We believe
in the rule of law, but we also understand that it is these things that
are the purpose of the law. When the law no longer fulfills this
purpose, it is unjust and must be reformed.
Any good public
policy must be based upon respect for your fellow human beings as
children of God. It must be based upon respect for family and
community. But today, we recognize and remember that every day 1,100
people are being deported -- 1,100 people. For us, 1,100 is not a
statistic, a talking point, or just another campaign issue. This number
represents our parishioners, our neighbors, our brothers and sisters,
our family and friends. It represents families that are torn apart,
lives that are disrupted, and dreams that are shattered. It breaks our
hearts to know that somewhere there is a 7-year-old crying for her dad
who was deported to come home. I know this girl's tears break the heart
of God, and they should break the hearts of our lawmakers and give them
the motivation to fight for respect, relief from cruel deportation
policies, and meaningful reform.
It has been a long,
hard road in fighting for immigration reform. The people here today
know that better than anyone else. Hebrews 11 says faith is the
substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. My best
paraphrase of that verse is that hope is believing in spite of the
evidence, and then watching the evidence change.
Brothers and
sisters, faith leaders and immigrant rights activists are here because
of our faith, and we will continue to act in hope until the evidence
changes.
The politicians,
the media, and the pundits say, "Not yet. Just be patient. Wait for the
political climate to change, or for this election to pass. It's the
other party's fault. If everyone just votes for me and my party all
these problems will be solved." I am sure that abolitionists heard
this, labor leaders, and civil rights leaders were told this time and
time again. It may be the job of politicians to have these
considerations and make these pronouncements, but it is our job to keep
on fighting anyway. We ignore the excuses because we know that it does
not have to be this way. We ignore them because we are not here to
follow the political winds, but we are here to change them. We ignore
them, and we're not going away just because this is hard. Our hope will
outlast their political cynicism and maneuvering. We ignore them
because we are people of hope who believe in spite of the evidence and
then watch the evidence change.
What Have We Learned Since 9/11?
September 9, 2010
This Saturday, we commemorate the ninth anniversary of 9/11. It is with pain and sadness that we remember the day the towers fell, the Pentagon was attacked, and another plane full of passengers crashed into a field in Shanksville, Pennsylvania, after brave citizens stopped the terrorists from hitting their target. For nine years the anguish of lost loved ones and the feeling of vulnerability we all felt as terrible acts of violence were perpetrated on our soil have stuck with us all.
At this time, it is also appropriate to ask, What have we learned? How have we grown as a country? How have we healed, or how have we, in our hurt, turned around and hurt others? These are not either/or questions. We have, in fact, done both: healed and wounded, learned and regressed, grown and shrunk back from the challenges before us. The challenges before us today lie in our ability to move forward in healing and building the cause of peace while remembering the lessons and lives lost in the past.
But rather than showing that we have grown in understanding, this anniversary has been marred by two events that show how the extremes can still control the discourse, both in America and around the world.
First, there has been near-universal condemnation of the Quran burning planned for this Saturday by Terry Jones and his Florida church. Opposition has come from Muslims, Christians, Jews; Republicans and Democrats; civilians, politicians (including the president), and generals.
What Jones doesn't seem to understand is that the message he is really sending is a sacrilegious slap in the face of Jesus Christ. If Jones and his followers go through with their plans to burn the Quran, they might as well burn some Bibles too, because they are already destroying the teachings of Jesus. Jesus called his followers to be peacemakers, and to love not only their neighbors, but also their enemies; instead Jones and his church have decided to become agents of conflict and division. Jones needs someone to tell him that Americans should not judge all Muslims by the actions of a small group of terrorists -- and I hope somebody tells Muslims around the world not to judge Christians, or all of America, by the actions of a radical fringe like the members of Dove World Outreach Center.
But just as the proclaimed faith of the terrorists bears no resemblance to the faith of most Muslims, the actions of Jones and his followers bear no resemblance to the faith of most Christians. Jones knows that his actions are legally protected, but if he follows through he should know that he makes a mockery of the teachings of Jesus and even puts our country and U.S. troops in danger.
If you are a pastor, especially an evangelical or charismatic pastor who might have a way to connect with Terry Jones, please contact him and tell him you are praying that he won't do this. If you are a Christian (and especially those who are members of a church in the Gainesville, Florida, area), please look into some of the other events that are being planned that day. Use this as an opportunity to be a prayerful presence for peace, love, and reconciliation -- for Jesus' sake. And send a message to the world about what our faith is truly about.
Second, an issue that many people are much more mixed about: Will building an Islamic community center within two blocks of Ground Zero help bring healing? Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, who had the vision for the center, is a good friend I have known for many years. I've had the pleasure working beside him in building bridges between Muslims, Christians, and Jews. His heart and commitment to the work of reconciliation between people of different faiths and backgrounds has always shone through in everything that Feisal and his wife, Daisy Khan, do. They are genuine peacemakers, and I know this controversy about their dream of a community center pains them deeply. I do not doubt for a second that every action they have taken toward building this Islamic community center has been with peace and reconciliation in mind.
When the story first broke in The New York Times this past December, it was met with little interest. The fact that a moderate Muslim leader, who had lived and worked in the community of lower Manhattan for 25 years, was planning to build a community center was not considered controversial. Unfortunately, there were those who saw this as a political opportunity to create conflict and division and stir up ideological passions by distorting Imam Feisal's mission and purpose. He told the nation last night that if he had ever imagined that his plans would cause this much hurt and distress, he never would have proposed building the center at that location.
I do not believe the center of the debate is merely the community center's proximity to Ground Zero. Across the country, the building (and even existence) of mosques is being protested, others mosques are being vandalized, alarming attacks on individual Muslims are occurring, and now, an obscure and marginal group in Florida is planning to burn the Quran in the name of their extreme brand of Christianity -- getting the pastor's face on the front page of USA Today.
This conflict is really about the role that faith will play in America. It is about whether or not we will accept Muslim Americans as true Americans or second-class citizens. It is about whether we will blame millions of American Muslims and 1 billion Muslims worldwide for the actions of a small number of Muslims who try to use their brand of faith to murder innocent people. It is about whether or not the country will embrace a Muslim who seeks peace and wants to help rebuild lower Manhattan or reject him because of his religious beliefs.
This is a test of our character; and we dare not fail it.
An Open Letter to Glenn Beck
September 2, 2010
Dear Glenn,
I
think we got off on the wrong foot. I listened to your speech last
Saturday and heard a lot of things that we agree on. In fact, I have
used some of the same language of our need to turn to God, and the
values of "faith, hope, and charity" (love). What I would like to find
out, and others would too, is what you mean by that language. Until
last weekend, you have consistently described yourself primarily as an
entertainer, and the public has known you as a talk show host. But last
Saturday, you sounded more like an evangelist or revivalist on the
steps of the Lincoln Memorial. I know we disagree significantly on many
issues of public policy, but you said that people can disagree on
politics and still agree on basic values and try to come together.
Maybe we should test that. Instead of my being up on your blackboard
and a regular target of your show's rhetoric, why don't we finally have
that civil dialogue I invited you to months ago?
Your speech on the Mall suggested and even promised a change of heart
on your part, so why don’t we talk? Here are a few things I think we
could talk about.
First, I’ve been asked by people in the media
if it matters that you are a Mormon. I unequivocally answer, no, it
does not. We don’t want more anti-Mormon bigotry any more than we want
the anti-Muslim bigotry now rising up across the country. By the way,
you should speak to that (against it). On Saturday you talked about the
fact that our nation has some scars in our past. I think one of those
scars is the historical persecution and bigotry that many Mormons have
faced, as well as Catholics, Jews, and Muslims. But, as you said,
instead of dwelling on the bad things of the past, we need to learn
from them and look to the future. The best way to do that is to make
sure we all stand for religious liberty and tolerance, and are careful
not to denigrate anybody else’s faith tradition, experience, or
language. If you are ever in need of an evangelical Christian to speak
out against anti-Mormon sentiment directed at you or others, I am here
to help.
In an interview the day after your rally you said that
you would like to "amend" your statement in which you accused President
Obama of being a racist and said he had a deep hatred in his heart for
white people. I commend you for that. But a simple and straightforward
apology would have been better. All of us say things we shouldn’t
sometimes, but you have consistently mischaracterized the President’s faith. You also said in that interview that you would like to have a conversation about it. I’d like to do that.
I
also think it would be a good thing to stop attacking people and
churches you label as "social justice Christians," not just because I’m
tired of being on your blackboard, but because I think you genuinely don’t understand the concept
and how central it is to biblical faith, and how essential to the whole
gospel. I am sure there are those who have misused the term, just as
there are those who will co-opt any good label that exists. If "social
justice" were truly code for Communism or Marxism or Nazism, as you
have suggested, I would be right beside you in condemning it.
In
his opening sermon at Nazareth, Jesus gave his own mission statement
when he declared, "The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has
anointed me to bring good news to the poor, he has sent me to proclaim
release to the captives and recovery of sight to the blind, to let the
oppressed go free, to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor." Those
were his very words, Glenn, including the stuff about releasing
captives and freeing the oppressed—language you have been pretty
critical of. In fact, the end of Jesus' famous sermon in Luke 4, about
proclaiming "the year of the Lord's favor," was a direct reference,
according to most biblical scholars, to the "year of Jubilee" in the
Hebrew scriptures, which called for a periodic freeing of slaves,
cancelling of debts, and returning land to original owners. It was
written into the Torah as legal code and not just left up to individual
charity. It was about "social justice" and even "redistribution" -- two
of the least popular words on your show. You regularly criticize other
people’s "versions" of Christianity. How about Jesus’ version of
Christianity?
I thought you might be changing your own mind a
bit when I heard you lifting up the legacy of Dr. Martin Luther King
Jr. and associating yourself with him on the 47th anniversary of his
eloquent "I Have a Dream" speech, given from the very place you stood
on Saturday. I was encouraged by that because Dr. King was the
archetypal social justice Christian and the primary teacher for many of
us on the social implications of biblical faith. His personal faith led
him to fight for racial and economic justice -- social justice. I hope
you read many of his words before you spoke on the anniversary of his
great speech, because we can't claim the mantle of King without also
embracing his message. You seemed to affirm King's assertion that
racism was not simply a private moral issue but one that required
response through federal action and legislation. I'd like to talk with
you about the rest of King's dream. If King was right about racism,
could he have also been right about poverty and war? I didn't hear much
about King's words on either of those issues in your speech on Saturday.
And
let’s talk about salvation. You have emphasized that you believe
strongly in personal salvation, as opposed to "collective salvation."
As an evangelical Christian, I also believe deeply in personal
salvation -- it is the foundation of my faith. But we need to ask
ourselves, what are we saved for? Is salvation just about getting a
pass into heaven? Is it just for us? Or is it also for the world, and
being a part of God’s work and purposes in the world today? When I read
a passage like Matthew 25 or Amos 5, I believe it’s clear that God
won’t hear my prayers if I don't care for the least of these, or I
refuse justice to those in need. You spoke about charity at your rally
on Saturday. Throughout the Old Testament it is clear that God requires
compassion and charity from individuals, but God also requires justice
from society. We agree that personal charity is important, but the God
of the Bible is also a God of justice. His prophets regularly
challenged the priorities, policies, and behavior of kings, rulers,
employers, judges, and any leaders (including religious ones) who
practiced injustice and robbed the poor of their dignity and rights.
The leaders of his day were so upset with Jesus’ challenge to their
status quo that they killed him. Would they have been so threatened if
Jesus was just asking people to be better persons and volunteer more
often? Jesus announced the kingdom of God, which would change
everything -- personally, spiritually, socially, economically, and even
politically -- not with a new government or program, but with a new way
of living that included both love and justice.
Before, I thought
you were just another cable news talk show host. But now, you are using
the language of a spiritual and even a religious leader. You acted as
though you now want people to look to you for that kind of spiritual
leadership. But to invoke the name of God and the vocation of a
spiritual leader has consequences. It brings with it a whole new level
of responsibility and accountability. It will require a more civil and
even humble tone than you are used to. It will likely mean saying some
different things and, certainly, saying many things differently than
you have in the past. Pundits and talk show hosts say things that
divide, create conflict, and get good ratings. They appeal more to fear
than to hope. But spiritual leaders try to avoid vitriol and bombastic
language, and to rather seek to find common ground and bring people
together to find real solutions to real problems. So let's talk about that too.
You
said your rally day was the start of the nation turning to God. Many
people in this country have already done that and, in fact, try to do
it every day. But maybe it was the start of Glenn Beck becoming a
different kind of public voice than you have been before. I hope so.
And one good way to demonstrate that is to agree to an honest and civil
conversation with somebody you have often attacked. How about it, Glenn?
Martin Luther King Jr. Was a Social Justice Christian
August 26, 2010
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!'"
For They Shall be Called Children of God
August 19, 2010
[Note: Jim
Wallis is on a well-deserved vacation for the next few weeks. Rev.
Jennifer Kottler, director of policy and advocacy at Sojourners, will
be writing the SojoMail column in his absence.]
In
Sunday school many many years ago, I learned the Beatitudes. And I
think that my very favorite one has always been, "Blessed are the
peacemakers, for they shall be called children of God." I wasn’t
exactly sure what it really meant to be a "peacemaker" other than that
I shouldn’t start fights on the playground, and while I think I might
know better now, it's not easy. Peace is not just the absence of
conflict. Jesus was talking about the Hebrew understanding of peace as
"shalom," which means health and wholeness and reconciliation in our
hearts and in our communities. It is not just the absence of conflict,
but also the presence of well-being and compassion. Blessed are you who
bring about shalom -- for you will be called children of God. It's no
small feat to be a peacemaker, but I would venture that, for those of
us who call ourselves Christians, there is no higher calling.
I’ve
been thinking about this calling a great deal in terms of my Christian
response to the controversy swirling around the proposal to build Cordoba House two blocks from Ground Zero. What does it mean for Christians to be peacemakers in this midst of this controversy? What would that look like?
Unfortunately,
many of my Christian brothers and sisters who are opposing this
construction, or the construction of other mosques or community centers
in communities across the country, have not had much exposure to Islam
or Muslims. Too many people’s only conscious experience with Muslims is
9/11. And so their response comes from a place of anger and pain when
they consider the thought of the construction of this building or any
building that represents that faith. And while I think that is
unfortunate and misdirected, it is understandable. But even so, how
does Christ call us to be peacemakers in this context?
For
American Muslims who are not extremists, who are devoutly observant and
who want to be able to practice their faith in peace, backlash of this
kind is similarly painful. It’s not just people saying, "You can build
your community center, but not here." In too many places now, "not
here" has become "not anywhere." Protests have broken out in
communities across the country where Muslim community centers and
religious buildings have been proposed for construction. (The
controversy surrounding Cordoba House is not an isolated incident.)
There has been a serious case of NIMBY ("Not In My Back Yard") syndrome
in many places throughout the U.S. since 9/11. Even those who agree
that Muslims have the constitutional right to build houses of worship
and community centers want them built "somewhere else." Again, how is
Christ calling us to be peacemakers in the midst of this?
As
someone who has Muslim friends with a devout faith, I want people to
understand that it is not the religion, but a perversion of that
religion that fueled terrorists on 9/11. But I know that for many it is
difficult to distinguish between the two. The only Muslims that we
usually hear about on the news are those who are terrorists, but they
do not represent the Muslim faith, any more than Timothy McVeigh
represents Christianity. However, I do believe that intentional
interaction can lead to mutual understanding if both parties are
willing to be in a true dialogue with one another. My friend Eboo Patel founded the Interfaith Youth Core
on the principle that through service and cooperation, youth of diverse
faiths will form relationships that allow for understanding and
appreciation of religious difference. I have other friends who have
spent their entire careers in Christian ministry striving to achieve
interfaith understanding, responding to Christ’s call to be a
peacemaker. This is difficult work, and its ability to come to fruition
has been tested—never more so than in the past nine years.
The issue of whether or where to build the Cordoba House
is not as black and white as the media would like it to make it out to
be. Questions of whether this building should be allowed to be built
are not the same as whether or not it should be built there, or where
it should be built. With all my heart, I know that as an American I
will stand up for religious freedom and freedom of assembly for people
of all faiths, and so in my mind there is no question. The people of
good will who desire to build Cordoba House should be able to build it.
But I also understand the deep-seated pain and grief that many
Americans feel about 9/11, emotions that unfortunately turn into anger
toward Muslims. And that anger is particularly acute on this issue
because of the close proximity of the proposed construction site to
Ground Zero. And yet, we are called to be peacemakers.
Paul
Tillich said that religions are beliefs that deal with "ultimate
concerns." And while the pain of 9/11 is very real for so many, it
should never become a religion in the sense Tillich describes. And at
some level, we as a nation must move beyond our pain to healing and
reconciliation. And I think that reconciliation and healing must come
from being willing to open our hearts and our minds to our Muslim
neighbors. It is my prayer that Christians all over this country would
make a concerted effort to get to know the Muslims in their
communities, or to learn about Islam’s tenets and beliefs. Now, don’t
think for a minute that I am asking anyone to give up his or her faith
or what that faith teaches. But maybe I am asking us all to remember
and respond to Christ’s call to be peacemakers, bridge-builders, shalom-bringers
in communities that are not experiencing God’s vision of shalom. Above
all else, as Christians we are called to love the Lord our God with all
our heart, all our soul, all our mind, and all our strength, and to
love our neighbor as ourselves. And while loving our neighbors doesn’t
necessarily mean that we have to agree with them, it does mean that we
need to seek to understand them, and acknowledge their pain.
Unfortunately, on this issue, there is more than enough pain to go
around.
Rev. Jennifer Kottler is the Director of
Policy and Advocacy at Sojourners. A long-time advocate for justice,
Jennifer has served in advocacy ministry for more than seven years
through her work at Protestants for the Common Good (Chicago, IL), the
Let Justice Roll Living Wage Campaign, and the Chicago Jobs Council.
Choices Make Changes
August 12, 2010
[Note: Jim
Wallis is on a well-deserved vacation for the next few weeks. Rev.
Jennifer Kottler, director of policy and advocacy at Sojourners, will
be writing the SojoMail column in his absence.]
"Destiny
is no matter of chance. It is a matter of choice. It is not a thing to
be waited for, it is a thing to be achieved." -- William Jennings Bryan
(1860 - 1925)
I think it’s often easier to let life happen than
to consciously experience it. Many of us (far too many of us, perhaps)
go through the motions without a lot of thought about how our actions
both individually and collectively are creating (and destroying) the
world. How we spend our money, how we consume news and information, how
we treat each other and the earth -- all of these impact our
communities, our families, and ourselves.
Until recently, I never gave going to the grocery store a second thought. Grocery shopping
was a necessary evil for me, and once I got there, I just bought what I
needed for the best price I could find, and then left -- often thankful
that the store had what I needed. But did you know that our food (the
growing, processing, packaging, and transportation) is second only to
personal automobiles in consumption of fossil fuels?
And it is a close second at that. We consume nearly as much fossil fuel
through our food as we do in our cars. As someone who rarely drives and
takes public transportation or walks as an alternative, this stunned
me. It has forced me to confront the ways that I contribute to our
over-consumption of energy for the sake of convenience.
I found
another little factoid equally disturbing. I don’t know if any of you
happened to catch Dr. Sanjay Gupta on CNN when he was talking about the
number and amounts of chemicals that are now being found in infants
prior to birth. Children are now being born with better than 200
different chemicals in their systems through the “normal” exposure of
pregnant women to the world around us -- food, air, cleaning products,
and plastics. These chemicals range from what are thought to be
harmless compounds to what are known to be very harmful heavy metals
like mercury. And while I have to believe that women who live in cities
are more likely to be exposed to a wider variety of substances, none
are immune. We know very little about how these chemicals are affecting
the health of the next generation.
So I have decided to make
some changes -- both to improve my health and to do all that I can to
reduce my carbon footprint on the planet. Please know I am very aware
that the ability to make these choices is a privilege I have. And know
at the same time that I am advocating for policies that will permit
more of us to do the same -- particularly folks who live in communities
where food choices, especially fresh food choices, are severely
limited. But for those of us who can make changes, I would challenge
you to think about ways you can make choices that benefit yourself,
your family, your community, and the environment.
Change #1: I
am going to purchase my food as close to its source as possible.
Growing up in a rural community in western Pennsylvania, we were able
to purchase (or were given) vegetables that came directly from the
farmers who grew them. I grew up with an intimate knowledge of where
food came from. The local dairy farmer delivered milk in glass bottles
that you returned when empty. Now that I live in the city, I have found
I can still get milk delivered from the dairy (which I do with several
of my co-workers), and I can purchase eggs and produce at the weekly farmers market in my neighborhood.
Others of my friends have purchased Community Supported Agriculture
(CSA) shares. While this may mean having to find a good recipe for
kohlrabi or kale, it is a great way to support small farmers that are
within striking distance of the city, and keep fresh foods more
affordable. I was pleased to learn that many farmers markets now accept
government-issued supplemental nutritional assistance program cards
(food stamps) and WIC vouchers.
Change #2: I am going to
purchase food as close to its natural state as possible. This means
that the processed, packaged, and trucked food is going to be kept at a
minimum. So when I do go to the store it may be for the ingredients to
make bread rather than a loaf of bread itself. I’m choosing not only to
try to reduce my carbon footprint in regards to processing and
packaging, but I’m also working to reduce my intake of preservatives
and other chemicals used in the production of processed food.
I have decided that one of the first things I am going to do is learn
how to make bread. But know that you don’t have to join me in jumping
off the deep end in order to reduce your use of processed foods. Even
purchasing fresh fruits and vegetables rather than canned or frozen (or
better yet -- organically and locally grown produce) can have an impact.
Change #3: I am going to reduce my use of water. I have already stopped purchasing bottled water,
and instead I use a drinking water filtration system at home and at the
office. But I am as guilty as the next person of not being conscious of
how much water I use
for showering, washing dishes, and washing clothes. Newer,
high-efficiency washers use significantly less water, but shy of
purchasing a new machine, I can do small things like ensuring that I
don’t do a load of laundry unless I have a full load to do, filling the
washer with the least amount of water needed, not running the
dishwasher unless it’s full, and not staying in the shower (even though
it feels awesome!). Not letting the water run while you brush your
teeth also makes a difference. I have to pay for my water consumption
(my apartment is metered so I only pay for what I use), so I can
monitor my success. But again, just being aware of ways in which clean
water is wasted can impact your consumption.
I’ve also made some
big choices (living close to work, taking public transportation to go
most places, drinking water rather than soft drinks, adjusting the
thermostat when I am out of the house) that will help reduce my carbon
footprint. But I know there is more that I can do. And I know that many
of you are creatively engaging this issue in your families,
congregations, and communities. I want to know what you are doing, so I
hope you will take the time to comment on our blog.
The bottom
line is this. The choices we make really do matter. And collectively,
these choices matter a lot. I believe God calls us to live consciously,
making deliberate choices and thinking through how the choices we make
about the way we live impact the lives of others -- those we can see in
our own community and those who live halfway around the world. So I
invite you to commit to three changes of your own, because choices can
indeed make changes -- in our homes, our communities, and perhaps most
importantly, in ourselves.
Rev. Jennifer Kottler is
the Director of Policy and Advocacy at Sojourners. A long-time advocate
for justice, Jennifer has served in advocacy ministry for more than
seven years through her work at Protestants for the Common Good
(Chicago, IL), the Let Justice Roll Living Wage Campaign, and the
Chicago Jobs Council.
Attention Must Be Paid
August 5, 2010
[Note: Jim
Wallis is on a well-deserved vacation for the next few weeks. Rev.
Jennifer Kottler, director of policy and advocacy at Sojourners, will
be writing the SojoMail column in his absence.]
In
our 24-hour news cycle society, where news and so-called news
(sensationalism, by any other name) is thrown at us at lightning speed
and in ever-increasing amounts, it can be difficult to distinguish the
important from the immediate. We get emails and action alerts (even
from us at Sojourners!) that speak to the need for immediate action.
It’s not only what is done that might get the media’s, or society’s, or
America’s attention, but the timing must be right. It’s all very
symptomatic of our societal ethos that says, “I want it all and I want
it now” and “I want to be entertained.”
And it makes it
difficult to pay sustained attention to anything. Even the biggest
things. We get what the media call “issue fatigue.” We just can’t
attend to a particular issue any longer. It might be too painful, it
might require too much energy, or we might actually have to examine how
our actions contributed to the problem. At any rate, we just get too
tired to listen any longer.
But at Sojourners we have been listening to voices from the Gulf since this started back in April, and we are continuing to listen now. All is not well, the oil is not gone,
and nature is not “taking care of itself.” God never intended that oil
from deep below the earth’s surface should find its way into the Gulf
of Mexico in such massive quantities. Now is not the time for the news
media to move on to other issues; it’s time for the spotlight to stay
where it is, and ensure that people whose lives have been devastated by
this disaster are compensated, and ensure that every drop of the oil
that can be cleaned up is. Seventy-five percent isn’t good enough. The
minute the spotlight leaves, so will the pressure on BP to make things
right for the people and the environment that were destroyed. Attention
must be paid.
Let us not lose sight. This is the largest oil
spill disaster in the history of the world. At no other time have 5
million barrels of oil been “released” into the waters of the earth. As
a recent New York Times article confirmed, scientists have no idea of the long-term effect this will have on the Gulf, or the world:
“We’ve
never had a spill of this magnitude in the deep ocean,” said Ian R.
MacDonald, a professor of oceanography at Florida State University.
“These
things reverberate through the ecosystem,” he said. “It is an
ecological echo chamber, and I think we’ll be hearing the echoes of
this, ecologically, for the rest of my life.”
Similarly, we
don’t yet know what the effects of the “clean up” will be. Where
exactly do 5 million barrels of oil go? As an Alabama newspaper pointed
out on Tuesday, much of the so-called “cleaned up” oil has ended up in
landfills in poor communities with high concentrations of people of color:
An
analysis by Robert Bullard of the Environmental Justice Resource Center
of Clark Atlanta University has made a provocative and, no doubt,
controversial finding: that much of the waste generated by the oil
spill cleanup efforts is winding up in common landfills located in
majority-black areas...
Bullard cited BP's oil spill waste
summary, which said that as of July 15, more than 39,448 tons of oil
garbage had been disposed at 9 approved landfills in Alabama, Florida,
Louisiana, and Mississippi. More than half (5 out of 9) of the
landfills receiving BP oil-spill solid waste are in communities where
people of color comprise a majority of residents living near the waste
facilities.
What will be the effect of the oil as it seeps
into the earth, into wells and streams, contaminating both drinking
water and the environment? Will BP compensate these residents when
wells no longer provide potable water and communities face alarming
rates of asthma and cancer? Or will we no longer make the connection?
Don’t
get me wrong. I’m thrilled that efforts to permanently plug the well
are working. And I thank God every day for that. But I’m afraid that
our attention to this as an ongoing crisis will wane. I’m afraid that
the appropriate people will not be held accountable. I’m afraid that we
will not examine our use of and our need for fossil fuels, and I’m
afraid that Congress will sidestep the issues of both relief for the
families and this region, and putting us on a path toward a new energy
future -- one that will move us forward as a country and begin to care
for our planet.
Thousands of you responded to our call to ask
the Senate to pass the bill that the House already passed on these
issues. Thank you for your willingness to speak out to your senators.
But it doesn’t appear that they are listening, or paying attention to
you, or the people in the Gulf region.
But attention must be
paid. In Arthur Miller’s “Death of a Salesman,” this line is spoken by
Linda, the wife of the salesman, Willy Loman, as she speaks to her
children about their father. In Act 1, Part 8, she says:
I
don't say he's a great man. Willy Loman never made a lot of money. His
name was never in the paper. He's not the finest character that ever
lived. But he's a human being, and a terrible thing is happening to
him. So attention must be paid. He's not to be allowed to fall in his
grave like an old dog. Attention, attention must finally be paid to
such a person.
And in the Gulf, attention must finally be
paid to such a situation. If not, it won’t continue to garner the
headlines, it won’t continue to receive the attention that it should
from those in the federal government who have been charged to attend to
such things. And BP, no longer seeing it as a public relations
nightmare, will pack up shop and head home. And while the lives of
those charged with addressing the problem will return to normal, the
lives of people in the Gulf and the environment there will be left in
shambles, with both facing an uncertain future. But only if we stop
paying attention. Attention must be paid.
Rev. Jennifer Kottler
is the Director of Policy and Advocacy at Sojourners. A long-time
advocate for justice, Jennifer has served in advocacy ministry for more
than seven years through her work at Protestants for the Common Good
(Chicago, IL), the Let Justice Roll Living Wage Campaign, and the
Chicago Jobs Council.
The Immigration Fight Isn't Over
July 29, 2010
[Note: Jim
Wallis is on a well-deserved vacation for the next few weeks. Rev.
Jennifer Kottler, director of policy and advocacy at Sojourners, will
be writing the SojoMail column in his absence.]
Yesterday, U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton preliminarily struck down key provisions in Arizona’s infamous SB 1070
law and ruled that states cannot preempt federal law. While important,
this is a victory that rings hollow for me and all those who care about
the true reform of our immigration system. In many ways, the damage to
neighborhoods and communities had already been done, as people did not
wait to see how the law would affect them. Many mixed-status families
pulled their children out of school and moved out of state, closing
stores and restaurants and leaving many immigrant neighborhoods like
ghost towns. This did not just affect undocumented immigrants but all
those whose status might be called into question -- including citizens,
permanent legal residents, and temporary visa holders.
The
court’s preliminary decision is only the beginning of the litigation
process, which will unfold in the coming months. Yesterday’s ruling,
however, is a necessary first step in affirming the principle that it
is the federal government’s responsibility to set immigration policy
and to enforce that policy. It affirms that even if the federal system
is failing, states do not have the authority to set or enforce their
own policies.
Immigration is continually labeled as an issue
that "deeply divides Americans." But is that true? Recent polling found
widespread support for a path to citizenship for undocumented
immigrants. A new study sponsored by America’s Voice found that more
than 75 percent of Americans who read a description of comprehensive immigration reform
said they would support the measure. And according to Robert Jones, CEO
of the Public Religion Research Institute, "More than 8-in-10 Americans
-- including overwhelming majorities of white mainline Protestants,
Catholics, and white evangelicals -- believe strongly that immigration
reform should be guided by the values of protecting the dignity of
every person and keeping families together, as well as by such values
as promoting national security and ensuring fairness to taxpayers."
There is a strong and growing consensus around much of what needs to be
addressed by comprehensive reform.
It won’t be enough simply to
enforce the laws we already have. While we are indeed a nation of laws,
we are also a nation made up largely of immigrants and the progeny of
immigrants. Moreover, we are a nation made up largely of Christians and
people of other faiths -- faiths that teach and compel their followers
to care about what happens to the other, and to honor the dignity of
everyone created in the image of God. Granted, there is a vocal
minority opposed to reform. And ironically, most -- if not all -- of
the opponents are the children, grandchildren, great-grandchildren, or
great-great-grandchildren of immigrants. Most of these people’s
ancestors would not have been able to immigrate legally under our
current system.
So now what? First of all, as November creeps
closer, Bolton’s decision assures that comprehensive immigration reform
as a moral issue will be front and center this election season. But as
people of faith, we must reject the use of this issue to drive fear
into the debate and pit citizen against citizen, and citizen against
immigrant. We have to reject the politicization of this issue, and the
use of immigrant families as tools to win (or make the other lose) an
election. And when we see it happening, we need to call it out.
Secondly,
it’s not enough to repeal the most controversial parts of SB 1070, as
important as that is. The overall law still goes into effect today,
which will lead to a confusing patchwork of guidelines on the ground in
Arizona. This is a costly byproduct of enjoining the law, as law
enforcement will have to haphazardly interpret the remaining provisions.
Therefore,
lawmakers must act to fulfill their duty to make laws and set federal
policy on immigration. It will take fewer politicians and more
statesmen and stateswomen to reform our broken system. President Obama
must lead on comprehensive immigration reform, and Congress must be
willing to lead as well -- by having a fair and truthful debate on this
issue and passing a bipartisan bill that will be good for our country.
Clearly, the longer they wait, the more dysfunctional our system
becomes.
Finally, each of us needs to be willing to lead on this
issue. As difficult as it is to talk about issues like this with our
friends and families, we have a responsibility to challenge falsehoods
and myths about immigrants and talk about the contributions they make
to our communities. We need to transform the rhetoric into truth. At
the heart of our Christian tradition is the belief that true and
lasting transformation is not only possible but necessary, and it can
only happen when we are willing to do what needs to be done for the
common good.
While I was at an interview yesterday about the
Arizona law, I met a young woman. She asked me if I supported the Dream
Act. (The Dream Act would allow students who graduate from college or
go into the military the opportunity to become U.S. citizens.) I told
her that we did, and she responded with thanks. She said a friend of
hers just graduated from a prestigious East Coast university at the top
of his class, but because he was undocumented, he is not able to get a
professional job (despite his intellect and gifts) or go to graduate
school. Instead, he is back home working in his family’s restaurant
business, and our country and society lose out because we aren’t
utilizing his gifts.
Also yesterday afternoon, children of
immigrants -- mostly U.S. citizen children, many or most of whom live
in mixed-status households -- held a march
across from the White House to advocate for comprehensive immigration
reform. These children live in fear of being separated from parents and
family, many of whom came here for work they couldn’t find in their own
countries. They came to provide for their families. They want what all
parents want -- for their children to be healthy and fed.
Transformation
is not easy. In truth, it’s very, very difficult. While we need the
political will to transform our society, and leadership to get it done,
we also need to be personally transformed, and we need to act as agents
of transformation. If we fail to think and act differently, if we fail
to change the way immigration is understood and debated in this
country, we will fail our neighbors, our children, and our God. We have
to choose to be transformed, and we have to choose to be active
participants in the transformation of our society for good.
Rev. Jennifer Kottler
is the Director of Policy and Advocacy at Sojourners. A long-time
advocate for justice, Jennifer has served in advocacy ministry for more
than seven years through her work at Protestants for the Common Good
(Chicago, IL), the Let Justice Roll Living Wage Campaign, and the
Chicago Jobs Council.
A New Movement to Abolish Nuclear Weapons
by Jim Wallis, July 22, 2010
The
famed Chautauqua Institution devoted this entire week to the theme of
nuclear disarmament. It is a sign of the times. Chautauqua has often
been known for sensing the nation’s pulse and what is on the cutting
edge of its thinking. And after becoming a dormant public issue since
the end of the Cold War, the threat of nuclear weapons has again
created a new movement toward the goal of a world without them.
One
important sign of a shifting mindset came in 2007 when four of
America’s preeminent Cold Warriors -- George Shultz, Sam Nunn, William
Perry, and Henry Kissinger -- made headlines by co-authoring an op-ed
in The Wall Street Journal saying, “The world is now on the precipice of a new and dangerous nuclear era.” One year later, they wrote another WSJ
column that began with the sentence, “The accelerating spread of
nuclear weapons, nuclear know-how, and nuclear material has brought us
to a nuclear tipping point.”
Former Senator Sam Nunn, a
consistent hawk who always talked about “political realism” when he
represented Georgia in the U.S. Senate, was a speaker at Chautauqua on
Monday and got a standing ovation when he called for a “world free of
nuclear weapons.” That, according to Nunn and his fellow four horsemen,
is the only realistic way to security now. As the men have warned, “The
likelihood that non-state terrorists will get their hands on nuclear
weaponry is increasing ... We face a very real possibility that the
deadliest weapons ever invented could fall into dangerous hands.”
In
fact, nuclear weapons in any human hands have always been dangerous.
The failure of the United States and Russia to disarm their largest
nuclear arsenals after the Cold War is a principle cause of the threat
of the proliferation of nuclear weapons to more countries, failed
states, and even terrorist organizations.
And now, we have a
president who cares about nuclear disarmament. In the spring of 2009,
in his first major speech in Europe -- in Prague -- Barack Obama
affirmed his commitment. He pledged that “as the only nuclear power to
have used a nuclear weapon, the United States has a moral
responsibility to act. We cannot succeed in this endeavor alone, but we
can lead it, we can start it. So today, I state clearly and with
conviction America’s commitment to seek the peace and security of a
world without nuclear weapons.” I am told that this is something that
keeps Obama up at night.
But for me, perhaps the most important
sign of the times is a new generation of young Christian leaders who
have identified nuclear weapons as an issue of faith -- much as we did
as young Christian activists in the 1980s. Their commitment is best
exemplified by Tyler Wigg-Stevenson and his Two Futures Project,
which calls itself “a movement of American Christians for the abolition
of all nuclear weapons. We believe that we face two futures and one
choice: a world without nuclear weapons or a world ruined by them. We
support the multilateral, global, irreversible, and verifiable
elimination of nuclear weapons, as a biblically grounded mandate and as
a contemporary security imperative.”
Tyler gave an amazing speech
at Chautauqua this week, and was down in front when I spoke yesterday.
Sojourners was a leader in the movement to abolish nuclear weapons in
the 1970s and ‘80s, and I described that history -- how the faith
community was the animating core of that initiative for peace in the
midst of the Cold War. I told the audience that when Tyler first called
me about a new statement of Christian leaders that he had initiated and
asked if I would sign it, I wept after putting down the phone. A new
generation had decided to pick up the nuclear challenge once again, and
would now be an intellectual and spiritual force for the disarmament
that is now so crucial to the security of the world and of my two boys.
Spending the day with Tyler and his wife Natalie was the highlight of
my visit to Chautauqua.
To reverse the habits of the heart --
the assumptions and policies that have dominated U.S. national security
policy for more than 60 years -- will be a monumental achievement. And
the pressures against that happening will be enormous. Indeed, this is
a job for faith -- and for the kind of social movements that faith at
its best has always inspired. The energetic commitment of a new
generation of believers in accomplishing this magnificent goal will be
absolutely crucial. Perhaps after all the years of struggle on the huge
theological and political issues surrounding nuclear weapons, the time
for a new beginning has finally come. It’s time to end the nuclear
threat to our world, our humanity, and our faith.
The response of the people at Chautauqua to that call this week gave me a new sense of hope.
Controversy in Wisconsin
by Jim Wallis, July 15, 2010
It
was a nice invitation, not unlike many I’ve received before. Every
summer, a number of Christian music and arts festivals convene around
the country, featuring musicians and speakers and attracting tens of
thousands of young people. I have spoken at many such events over the
years and, in fact, met my wife, Joy Carroll, at the Greenbelt festival
in England! I'm guessing I've spoken there as many as 10 times. Joy is
helping to organize an "American Greenbelt" for next summer called the
"Wild Goose" Festival, an image that in Celtic spirituality signifies
the Holy Spirit.
So when Lifest, a Christian festival in
Wisconsin, invited me to come and speak this summer, and the date was
free, I accepted. Bob Lenz, who directs the annual gathering, is a
wonderful man with a big heart and a powerful ministry among high
school kids that has saved many from suicide. He’s the kind of guy you
want to say yes to. It was put in the calendar.
Then a firestorm
erupted. A local Christian radio station, which had always supported
Lifest, and a local pastor started circulating attacks against me,
suggesting that I was a communist, a deceiver, and, worst of all, an
adviser to Barack Obama. My favorite was that I was an "avowed Marxist"
and that any young person that heard me would be in "spiritual peril."
They were especially concerned that "the social justice message and
agenda [Sojourners] promote[s] is a seed of secular humanism, seeking
an unholy alliance between the Church and Government." Does that sound
anything like the language of a certain Fox News talk show host who has
recently come after "social justice" Christians and me in particular?
Oh no, they insisted, this had nothing to do with Glenn Beck.
The
intimidation of Bob Lenz and Lifest began, insisting that I be canceled
or they would face pull-outs and protests. A letter was sent to local
churches to call for my cancellation and, like Glenn Beck, the authors
just made stuff up. Under a great deal of pressure, Bob called me to
discuss what to do. He believed that these people were spreading lies
and didn’t want to capitulate to their threats. But they were really
stirring up trouble, and people were coming after him personally. I
decided to call the president of the radio station myself, to ask him
what his concerns were, and to offer a dialogue with his board or
anybody else he wanted while I was in Wisconsin. But he refused the
dialogue unless the station’s demands for my cancellation were met
(sounds like Glenn Beck again).
He said he was against the
"unholy marriage between the government and the church." Me too, I
said. When I told him how I successfully worked with the Obama
administration to preserve religious freedom in hiring for faith-based
organizations who receive any public funds (such as World Vision and
The Salvation Army), and spent half of my time on health care in
preserving the rule against federal funding of abortion, he became
silent and kept moving on to "other issues" – the last of which was
Sojourners supporting a two-state solution for the Israeli-Palestinian
conflict. When I reminded him that there actually were Palestinian
Christians, and that most mainline evangelical organizations now
support a two-state solution, he got silent again. But he refused to
change his position about me not speaking, and his final reason was
that I had supported the Bush administration’s faith-based initiative!
So my openness to a previous president’s ideas for faith-based
partnerships in alleviating poverty was the reason I shouldn’t speak at
Lifest? This was getting quite silly. But when the wild and fabricated
charges they began with all fell flat in face of the facts, they were
left with not much of an argument. But they stuck with it and pulled
out of the festival.
I didn’t realize how big a deal this had
become until I got to Wisconsin. Green Bay and Milwaukee television
stations were there, with the story already in their local media and
newspapers. I arrived to a series of press interviews and meetings with
local pastors who were very sorry about all this and expressed hope
that I would still come back to Wisconsin (I assured them that I loved
their state and would love to come back).
Finally I got to speak
to the young people, which was the reason that I came in the first
place. I told them that I came because of them and the hope their
generation provides to me. And that I liked the title of the talk I was
to give: "The Call to Jesus and his Kingdom of Justice." So that’s what
I talked about to a very enthusiastic response from the thousands of
young people who were there -- the crowd made even larger because of
the controversy, of course.
I said that when we have controversy
and conflict in the church and speak badly of one another as
Christians, it actually turns people away from Christ. And I said what
unites us is not our different cultures, nationalities, or political
views. What unites us is the gospel of Jesus and his kingdom, and their
job as a new generation was to make that clear. When I quoted Jesus'
opening sermon at Nazareth and concluded that "any gospel that isn’t
good news to the poor is not the gospel of Jesus Christ," they all
cheered.
The front page of the local paper in Appleton,
Wisconsin, where I boarded my flight for home the next day, led with
the story of the night before in nearby Oshkosh by saying, "Jim Wallis
shared his Bible-based message of serving the poor Friday night to a
large, welcoming crowd at Lifest despite a small number of boos at his
introduction." They reported what Bob Lenz courageously said in his
kind introduction: "This is my brother in Christ," he told the crowd.
"I think he has a message for God’s church. Part of who I am is because
of this man."
I told the young crowd that heeding what the Bible
says about serving the poor and seeking justice was not about social
action or politics, but rather about nothing less than restoring the
integrity of the Word of God in our lives, neighborhoods, nation, and
world. Their response to that indicated that many young people today
are no longer stuck in the old arguments and divisions in the church.
Most
seemed to feel that the controversy and protest looked pretty foolish
and unnecessary after the event had taken place. Many thanked Bob for
standing firm against some pretty nasty attacks and pressure. But if
the attackers had succeeded with intimidation to cancel a speaker they
didn’t agree with, there is no doubt that the tactics of distortion and
intimidation would have been repeated in other places. That is, after
all, how some media celebrities now make their living, and they are
encouraging others to follow their example. The newspaper article ended
with my saying it was time to "replace the gospel of Glenn, Rush, Sean,
and Bill with Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John."
When I got to the
TSA agent at airport security, she looked at my ID, smiled, and said,
"So, you’re Jim Wallis! I hope you felt very welcome here; many of us
are very glad you came." I did feel very welcome and am very glad that
I came.
Praying on the Gulf Coast
by Jim Wallis, July 8, 2010
The
captain was the first to smell it. He told us that the ocean didn’t
used to smell this way. Then we all smelled it. As we traveled further
out over the choppy waters, it finally came into view -- oil coating
the grasses and clinging to the edges of the water and land. I asked
what all the oil would do to this place. “Kill everything that lived
here before,” was the solemn answer.
Our captain’s name was
Kevin. He has fished those waters for 30 years. He learned to navigate
the bayous and estuaries from his father, who in turn learned it from
his father. Eighty percent of the areas he used to fish are now gone to
him. He’s heard stories of other fishermen taking their own lives. But
Kevin, with his 8-year-old daughter, is not giving up hope. “If we
didn’t have hope we wouldn’t have anything. So we hold on to hope,” he
told me.
Here we are in New Orleans ... again; on the Gulf Coast
... again. This place and what happens here has a way of asking America
deep questions. It’s not a role the people here have asked for, but one
that has fallen to them.
On Tuesday night, a delegation of
national faith leaders gathered together with the local religious
community and the people who live here for an interfaith service at
First Grace United Methodist Church -- a congregation formed from a
black church and a white church after the storm of Katrina. It was an
appropriate beginning to these days of seeing and listening to what is
happening here since the BP oil spill, because when they take
everything else away from you, all you have left is faith.
Because
of their faith, a local gospel choir, in the face of this environmental
disaster, led us to sing, “This is the day that the Lord has made, let
us rejoice and be glad in it.” Because of his faith, a young rabbi led
us through two often-asked Jewish questions: “What happened here, and
where were you?” Because of her faith, a young Muslim woman reminded us
that this church was once under five feet of water, and “We’re not
floating around. We’re praying for hope again tonight.” The faith
leaders have gathered from around the country because this is, for us,
more than a political and media issue; it is a spiritual and moral
issue.
Language fails us. This is not a “spill,” but a spoiling
of God’s creation -- of wetlands and beaches; of God’s myriad
creatures; of lives and livelihoods. And we heard many testimonies of
this devastation over these last few days. The words that kept coming
to my mind were “reflection, restoration, and renewal.”
The
first thing I noticed as we left the dock and entered the water was how
beautiful this place is. The marshes extend almost 15 miles out into
the ocean, and barrier islands are another five miles further out.
While I’m only a visitor, I can see how Kevin and so many others have
fallen in love with this place. It was so peaceful to hear the water
lap against the boat and see wildflowers coloring the marshes. The life
of a fisherman is certainly hard work, but our captain told me that the
beauty they see every day makes it all worthwhile. But Kevin says he
has seen nearly 25 percent of these marshes, the natural protection
against hurricanes, disappear during his time on the water. The oil
will only hasten their disappearance. “Flood waters recede and houses
we have rebuilt,” he told me, “but the estuaries are not restored so
quickly, if ever.”
The people I am meeting have fed this country
some of the world’s greatest seafood. Now, when some of them have to
stand in line for food at relief agencies, it is almost too much for
them to bear. Depression and mental health have become major issues on
the Gulf Coast when people see no future for themselves. We stopped at
a dock by a small village and talked with three women who were on their
way to work. We asked them if their faith had been shaken. They told
us, “No, it has only gotten stronger.” After all they had been through,
after all the times they had been knocked down, they were sure that the
only reason they stand today is because God has lifted them up.
I
was asked by a reporter if this disaster was an act of God. I said no,
this is a result of human folly. And if you think the people you see
here are sad at what has happened to this place, then just imagine how
sad the Creator who gave us this natural beauty as a gift must be. If
you think those who have lost their jobs are mad, imagine how angry the
God who gave us the job to take care of creation is when we fail like
this.
It is not enough for any of us to be sad, feel guilty, or
say we are sorry. We must repent. That means we have to turn away from
the way things have been and move forward on a new path. We need to
turn away from our addiction to oil that has hurt our neighbors and the
planet. Why this crisis has happened and what we will learn from it are
both spiritual questions we must now ask ourselves. Life will not be
the same for Kevin; it cannot be the same for us.
I leave for
home this afternoon, and I will tell the stories of what we have seen
and heard. As a matter of faith and solidarity with our brothers and
sisters on this embattled coast of America -- we will testify. I will
go to our congressional leaders and let them know that no one on the
Gulf Coast is getting a vacation while the oil continues to flow, and
they shouldn’t get a vacation either until they pass emergency
legislation for the people on the Gulf and begin work on building a
clean energy future. The political pundits and Washington insiders all
say it’s impossible, but it is the only thing that is responsible.
My
time here has confirmed that this disaster must become an epiphany for
our nation. An epiphany is a waking up. It’s when something changes in
our hearts and our spirits and suddenly we see the whole world for the
first time again. An epiphany then leads to conversion, when we make
the choice to live differently because of what we now know, see, and
feel.
Pray for the people here, and pray that this epiphany leads to conversion.
It's Time to End This War
by Jim Wallis, July 1, 2010
After
his unanimous approval by the Senate Armed Services Committee as the
new Afghan war commander, General David Petraeus was pictured in The Washington Post
with a broad smile and thumbs up proclaiming, “We are all firmly united
in seeking to forge unity of effort.” No, we’re not, General. No, we’re
not. In fact, I believe it’s time to begin to unite the religious
community against the war in Afghanistan.
Following last week’s
resignation of General Stanley McChrystal as commander of U.S. forces
in Afghanistan, confirmation hearings began right away for Petraeus to
become his replacement. But the real issue is not replacing one general
with another because of inappropriate comments and insubordination --
it’s the fatally flawed war policy in Afghanistan.
In February
1968, North Vietnamese and Viet Cong attacks erupted throughout South
Vietnam, showing that U.S. political and military leaders’ optimistic
pronouncements that the end of the war was near were not true. By then,
it was clear to many that the war was not winnable, yet more than half
of U.S. casualties in Vietnam occurred from that spring until the end
of the war (35,000 of the total 58,000).
I have walked the line
at the Vietnam Memorial Wall many times, with tears running down my
face as I read the names of my generation who were killed there. And
the painful remorse over that awful war is even greater when I remember
that the majority of those who died in Vietnam were killed after we
knew we would ultimately have to come home without “winning” the
unwinnable war. The last of the many reasons for staying in Vietnam
that I recall President Nixon saying was to come home “with our heads
held high.” We didn’t.
After 9/11, an international police
action to bring the perpetrators of that horrible crime to justice
would have been one thing. But to begin a war and then an occupation of
Afghanistan was the wrong policy, quickly killing more Afghan innocents
than the American innocents who died on September 11. It was then
further compromised by the completely mistaken and morally
unjustifiable war in Iraq.
When will we ever learn? The failed
policies are all too familiar: a counter-insurgency strategy requiring
more and more troops; creating the continued presence of a large U.S.
military force; increasing the resentment and hostility of the Afghan
people at a foreign occupation; trying to create a central government
out of an ungovernable tribal society; and depending on an incompetent
and utterly corrupt political ruler and regime.
An effective
anti-terrorism policy was never really tried and was replaced by a “war
on terrorism” which has failed. Here’s the metric: Has our primarily
military policy in Afghanistan and Iraq killed more terrorists than it
has recruited? I think we know the answer to that. The math of
terrorism is against us. And our military obsession has made the most
important question impossible to ask and even unpatriotic to consider:
How might we reduce and defeat the causes of terrorism in the first
place?
A new strategy in Afghanistan that focuses on
humanitarian assistance and sustainable economic development, along
with international policing, was also never tried. It could have been
led by NGOs, both faith-based and secular, who have been in the region
for years, have become quite indigenous, and are much more trusted by
the people of these countries than are the U.S. military. But such
assistance would have to be provided, as much as possible, by
independent civilian and non-governmental organizations -- both
international and local -- rather than using aid as a government
adjunct to military operations.
Yes, after taking over the
country, we do have a responsibility not to simply walk away. There are
ethical and moral issues that need to be considered: legitimately
protecting Americans from further terrorism; protecting the lives of
U.S. servicemen and women; protecting the Afghan people from the
collateral damage of war; defending women from the Taliban; genuinely
supporting democracy; and of course, saving innocent lives from the
collateral damage of war, to name a few.
And yes, effective
development needs security. We could have focused on economic
development, starting in areas that are secure and then growing to
additional parts of the country, but providing only the security
necessary to protect the rebuilding of the country. That kind of
peacekeeping security would have been more likely to gain the
international support we needed in Afghanistan, both from Europe and
even from Arab and Muslim countries.
Non-military strategies
should have led the way, rather than the other way around, as
counter-insurgency doctrine requires. We should not have made aid and
development weapons of war by tying them so closely to the military;
rather, we should have only provided the security support needed for
the development work to succeed -- led by respected, well-established
international organizations with strong local connections.
The
current strategy, even with a new commander, will only lead to more
casualties -- U.S. and Afghan -- while likely strengthening popular
support for the Taliban as an anti-occupation force. It is a strategy
of endless war that is ultimately doomed to failure.
Last Sunday, the photo on the front page of The New York Times
broke my heart. It showed the family of a military serviceman just
before he was redeployed to Afghanistan. He was in his fatigues,
holding his 6-month-old son with a look of deep pain on his face, with
his wife resting her head against his shoulder. The article told story
after story about families being separated by repeated deployments in
an endless war. Soldiers who are fathers, mothers, sons, and daughters
are dying for a wrong-headed, ineffective, failed, doomed, arrogant,
theologically unjust, and yes, immoral war policy. And of course, the
ones dying are not the young people headed for our best universities
and successful professional careers, but rather they are the ones who
have fewer options, or who see the military as their only option. Those
with the least opportunities, and their families, are again the ones to
sacrifice and suffer. It’s not right and it’s not fair.
The
number of U.S. service members killed in June was the highest for one
month since this now nine-year war began. It’s time to end this war. Or
should we just start building another wall?
Fatherhood: The Best Job in the World
by Jim Wallis, June 24, 2010
Sometimes
the most important things are not at the top of the news cycle -- even
the things that ultimately make the most difference in the world. The
continuing gush of oil and corporate irresponsibility, primary
elections and Washington infighting, tea parties and poll numbers,
disrespectful generals and failing wars, soccer matches and the longest
tennis match in history all are capturing the week's headlines.
I
had a great Father’s Day last Sunday with my two boys: 11-year-old Luke
and 7-year-old Jack. Despite the mess of the world, I was feeling very
happy and blessed all day, just by the opportunity to be their dad. Of
all the things I have done, this really is the thing I like the best,
and have come to regard as the most important. We started the morning
with special homemade cards and gifts, and later in the day raced off
to Maryland to play in a baseball tournament, then back to D.C. to
catch a matinee performance of The Karate Kid, then off for
more baseball in the evening with Luke's travel team families to watch
a "Big Train" game at the wonderful Shirley Povich Field where our kids
got to watch college players from around the country in a summer
league. Being so close to the field made everything seem so fast and
exciting, as our kids were mesmerized by the big players they all hope
to be someday.
Though it was a long Sunday, Luke and I got up
early Monday morning to go hear President Obama's fatherhood speech at
a Boys and Girls Club in Southeast Washington. It felt like an honor to
be invited and a great opportunity to hear the president, who also
loves being a dad, talk about how important he thinks fatherhood is for
the country. We expected just to be part of the audience and were
surprised to be asked to sit in the front row of the stage right behind
the president as he delivered his remarks. (You could tell that
placement was unexpected when the television coverage showed both of us
in the pictures with Obama, with Luke in his shorts and T-shirt!) But
sitting where we were, we really had to pay attention! And I found
myself quite moved by the president's words about being a father.
He
began by marking the one-year anniversary of the new national
conversation on fatherhood and personal responsibility that the White
House launched across the country. "Fatherhood" was also one of the key
task forces of the Council on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships
that I was privileged to be a part of this last year. Obama said that
each forum posed a simple question: "How can we as a nation -- not just
the government, but businesses and community groups and concerned
citizens -- how can we all come together to help fathers meet their
responsibilities to our families and communities?"
He spoke
honestly about all the problems caused by the absence of fathers in
their children's lives, and spoke personally about his own absent
father: "I say all this as someone who grew up without a father in my
own life. He left my family when I was two years old. And while I was
lucky to have a wonderful mother and loving grandparents who poured
everything they had into me and my sister, I still felt the weight of
that absence. It’s something that leaves a hole in a child’s life that
no government can fill." Barack Obama’s own life experience is a big
part of why this issue is so important to him, and why his two little
girls are so central in his life.
In a way that both
conservatives and liberals should find inspiring, he spoke about the
limits of government in such a personal and foundational area of life:
"We can talk all we want here in Washington about issues like education
and health care and crime; we can build good schools; we can put money
into creating good jobs; we can do everything we can to keep our
streets safe -- but government can’t keep our kids from looking for
trouble on those streets. Government can’t force a kid to pick up a
book or make sure that the homework gets done. Government can’t be
there day in, day out, to provide discipline and guidance and the love
that it takes to raise a child. That’s our job as fathers, as mothers,
as guardians for our children."
And, as he often does, he spoke
about the difference in having a kid and being a father: "The fact is,
it’s easy to become a father, technically -- any guy can do that. It’s
hard to live up to the lifelong responsibilities that come with
fatherhood. And it’s a challenge even in good times, when our families
are doing well. It’s especially difficult when times are tough,
families are straining just to keep everything together."
From
our vantage point on the stage, we could see the faces of the dads and
moms and kids who filled the auditorium. Their nodding heads, knowing
smiles, and hearty applause indicated that they knew exactly what the
president was talking about.
Obama zeroed in on the heart of his
message for Father’s Day: "Here’s the key message I think all of us
want to send today to fathers all across the country: Our children
don’t need us to be superheroes. They don’t need us to be perfect. They
do need us to be present. They need us to show up and give it our best
shot, no matter what else is going on in our lives. They need us to
show them -- not just with words, but with deeds -- that they, those
kids, are always our first priority. Those family meals, afternoons in
the park, bedtime stories; the encouragement we give, the questions we
answer, the limits we set, the example we set of persistence in the
face of difficulty and hardship -- those things add up over time, and
they shape a child’s character, build their core, teach them to trust
in life and to enter into it with confidence and with hope and with
determination.”
In our politically divided and polarized
environment, it was a refreshing word that should cut across all of our
political boundaries. As Obama put it, "Too often when we talk about
fatherhood and personal responsibility, we talk about it in political
terms, in terms of left and right, conservative/liberal, instead of
what’s right and what’s wrong. And when we do that, we’ve gotten off
track. So I think it’s time for a new conversation around fatherhood in
this country."
Then the president said something that I know he
truly believes, and made me feel very grateful that he does. He said,
"The work of raising our children is the most important job in this
country, and it’s all of our responsibilities -- mothers and fathers."
The crowd gathered in that recreation center in a tough Washington
neighborhood burst into applause, and it was all I could do to not jump
to my feet behind him. He went on to say, "Now, I can’t legislate
fatherhood -- I can’t force anybody to love a child. But what we can do
is send a clear message to our fathers that there is no excuse for
failing to meet their obligations. What we can do is make it easier for
fathers who make responsible choices and harder for those who avoid
those choices. What we can do is come together and support fathers who
are willing to step up and be good partners and parents and providers
... But ultimately, we know that the decision to be a good father --
that’s up to us, each of us, as individuals. It’s one that men across
this country are making every single day -- attending those school
assemblies; parent-teacher conferences; coaching soccer, Little League;
scrimping and saving, and working that extra shift so that their
children can go to college."
I think it is both rare and
significant when a political leader gets personal in an authentic way.
To admit mistakes and failures -- of our country and of ourselves -- is
not something politicians normally do, and this president has been
criticized for it. But when he spoke of his own struggles and joys as a
parent, every dad who heard him could easily identify. "Even when we
give it our best efforts, there will still be plenty of days of
struggle and heartache when we don’t quite measure up -- talking to the
men here now. Even with all the good fortune and support Michelle and I
have had in our lives, I’ve made plenty of mistakes as a parent. I’ve
lost count of all the times when the demands of work have taken me from
the duties of fatherhood. And I know I’ve missed out on moments in my
daughters’ lives that I’ll never get back, and that’s a loss that’s
hard to accept. But I also know the feeling that one author described
when she wrote that ‘to have a child ... is to decide forever to have
your heart go walking around outside your body.’”
I felt myself
tear up at that one, and I don't think I have ever heard a better
description of what is feels like to be a parent -- to have a child is
to have your heart walking around outside your body.
When Obama
talked about his own deepest feelings about his girls, he was getting
to the hearts of every dad who was listening on that Monday morning:
"I’m sure a lot of fathers here know that same memory that I have, of
driving home with Michelle and Malia right after she was born, going
about 10 miles an hour. Your emotions swinging between unadulterated
joy and sheer terror. And I made a pledge that day that I would do
everything I could to give my daughter what I never had -- that if I
could be anything in life, I would be a good father. And like a lot of
the men here, since that time I’ve found there’s nothing else in my
life that compares to the pleasures I take in spending time with my
girls. Nothing else comes close to the pride I feel in their
achievement and the satisfaction I get in watching them grow into
strong, confident young women."
I think that Obama's speech
about race in Philadelphia will be remembered as one of the most
important on that subject in many years. Many remember his soaring
rhetoric of change in speeches during the campaign, and the promise of
hope in the address he gave in Grant Park the night he was elected. But
sitting there, just a few feet from the presidential rostrum, the words
that came next seemed to me to be among the most important he will ever
speak: "Over the course of my life, I have been an attorney, I’ve been
a professor, I’ve been a state senator, I’ve been a U.S. senator -- and
I currently am serving as president of the United States. But I can say
without hesitation that the most challenging, most fulfilling, most
important job I will have during my time on this Earth is to be Sasha
and Malia’s dad."
And I believe he means that. I believe it in
part because that is the way I feel about being Luke and Jack's dad. Of
all the things I have ever done, this is the job that now feels like
the most important one to me. It's also the greatest privilege and
blessing I've ever had.
When he finished, President Obama turned
and came to greet the people in the front row on the stage. When he got
to us, he shook my son's hand and said, “Hey Luke, it’s great to
finally meet you. What grade are you in now?” “I'm in the sixth grade,”
Luke replied as he looked in the eyes of the president of the United
States. "That was awesome, Dad," he whispered as the president waived
and walked away. "I'm never going to wash this hand." I reminded him,
"Remember, that's your pitching hand, Luke." It was a good day, a great
speech, and a presidential commitment that could make more difference
in this country than most of the other things we talked about for the
rest of the day and for the rest of the week.
It Will Take a Mission
by Jim Wallis, June 17, 2010
This
week, in President Barack Obama’s Oval Office speech on the oil spill,
he used the term “mission.” That’s the right word. Most of the media
coverage, and even much of the presidential address Tuesday night, was
about “management” -- but the real and deeper meaning that is now
emerging out of the massive oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico is indeed
the call to a new mission.
The ongoing discussion about
who’s to blame, who’s responsible, and who’s in control of the oil
spill disaster -- which is now the worst environmental catastrophe in
U.S. history -- has been constant in the media, and the speech was in
response to many of those questions. The clear financial, and perhaps
criminal, responsibility of BP is a fundamental moral and political
issue here, of course; as is the continuing frustration of people in
the Gulf Coast region with the government’s response and leadership in
the crisis. The need for more skimmers, more boom, more equipment, more
people, more help, and much more coordination in protecting and
cleaning up the endangered Gulf Coast from the gushing assault of toxic
oil is very clear; but missing the deeper meaning would be an even
greater disaster now.
It will take a purposeful commitment to a
mission of change, of transformation in the way that our entire society
and culture is energized and powered, to truly respond to the epiphany
in the Gulf. After Obama described what he plans to do in response to
the immediate and long-term consequences of the oil spill, he returned
to more moral and even theological language in admitting how “our
addiction to fossil fuels” had taken us to deeper and more and more
dangerous waters -- drilling more than a mile under the ocean.
“For
decades, we have known the days of cheap and easily accessible oil were
numbered,” Obama said. “For decades, we’ve talked and talked about the
need to end America’s century-long addiction to fossil fuels. And for
decades we have failed to act with a sense of urgency that this
challenge requires. Time and again the path forward has been blocked,
not only by oil industry lobbyists, but also by a lack of political
courage and candor. The consequences of our inaction are now in plain
sight.”
But will the consequences in plain sight be enough to
change us? Last night, Jon Stewart did a very funny and very sobering
review of how the last eight Presidents now -- Obama, Bush 2,
Clinton, Bush 1, Reagan, Carter, Ford, and Nixon -- have called for and
promised to end our dependence on foreign oil. It’s time to indeed call
this an addiction -- and it is time for an intervention.
Obama
continued, "today as we look to the Gulf, we see an entire way of life
being threatened by a menacing cloud of black crude. We cannot consign
our children to this future. The tragedy unfolding on our coast is the
most painful and powerful reminder yet that the time to embrace a clean
energy future is now. Now is the moment for this generation to embark
on a national mission to unleash American innovation and seize control
of our own destiny.”
But to change our addictive oil habit --
which is killing the environment, killing wildlife, killing us, killing
the Gulf, and threatening our children -- will take a mission to:
- Change the practice
of seeing oceans as mere drilling opportunities for our insatiable
addictions, instead of as an integral part of Gods’ creative ecosystem.
- Change an economic ethic based on growth at any cost to one governed by the ethics of sustainability.
- Change corporate greed and recklessness into accountability and even commitment to the common good.
- Change government
accountability and regulation from the cozy relationship of political
appointees looking for future work in the industries they allegedly
oversee, to an independent and respected vocation as civil and public
servants.
- Change the vocational
trajectory of millions of our poorest youth from flipping burgers to
retrofitting a society for a clean energy future.
- Change our foreign
policy based on dependence on corrupt oil regimes, on sending our sons
and daughters off to fight and die for their crude product, on both
fueling and paying for the violent terrorism that is eventually used
against us.
- Change the political will to overcome the entrenched, special, selfish, and partisan interests of Washington.
- Change a culture to find new ways of living, thinking, working, transporting, and even measuring success.
- Change our values and very spirituality to rewire both ourselves and the energy grid for a cleaner and renewable energy future.
- Convert the faith community to provide a leadership role both by example and prophetic witness and advocacy.
At the end of his speech,
President Obama described the tradition on the Gulf Coast of “the
blessing of the fleet” -- before the region’s fishermen head out to
sea, often for weeks at a time -- and quoted a priest and fisherman who
once said, “The blessing is not that God has promised to remove all
obstacles and dangers. The blessing is that he is with us always, a
blessing that’s granted even in the midst of a storm.” Then Obama said,
“Tonight we pray for that courage, we pray for the people of the Gulf,
and we pray that a hand may guide us through the storm to a brighter
day.”
It will take seeing this as mission of God, and not merely
our own; and it will take our faith in God to see this mission through.
We Must Respond to the Needs of the Gulf Coast
by Jim Wallis, June 10, 2010
We
are counting the days now: the 49th day of the oil spill, the 50th, the
51st. We now know more every day, too. BP has not only lied, but it has
likely behaved in a criminal way, and it is now being investigated for
it. The keys to government regulation had long since been turned over
to the oil companies themselves, and the cozy oil/government
relationship led to this disaster. BP is not making good on its pay
promises for the clean-up, perhaps because it is spending millions on
desperate pubic relations advertising. President Obama is being
criticized by some for not responding strongly enough, soon enough, or
empathetically enough.
When I appeared on a cable news shows
last week to discuss the oil spill, Chris Matthews responded to the
things I was saying about our oil addiction by replying, “Well, you’re
going farther and deeper than we normally get on this show.” Right, and
that’s the problem. It is indeed time to go deeper. And if we don’t
turn this “teachable moment” into decisions to fundamentally change the
ways that we energize our economy, we may never make these necessary
changes in our lifetimes.
So how do we go deeper? Maybe by
listening more deeply and not just watching. When we listen, we are
moved to sacrifice; and when we sacrifice, we are transformed. To
whitewash a tomb is change, but it is not transformation. To bill
yourself as “Beyond Petroleum” instead of just plain old “British
Petroleum” might be change, but it certainly isn’t transformation. To
name a new head to the regulatory agency overseeing BP and its oil rigs
is change, but it’s not transformation. Without corporate
responsibility to the public good and without the government rooting
out the regulators who have forgotten what their job is, it’s all just
greenwashing. It’s cleaning the outside of the cup while leaving the
inside dirty; it’s straining out the gnat while swallowing the camel
whole.
At the heart of the Christian tradition lies the belief
that transformation requires sacrifice. In fact, I would say that the
difference between real movements and mere events is the sacrifice.
Deep and abiding change is hard. When we experience conversion, we not
only turn toward something new but away from something old. We can look
down the road and recognize that in the long run our sacrifice is worth
the cost, but it still does not make it easy or comfortable to sell all
we have to buy the pearl of great price.
At the root of the
crisis today is that BP learned exactly the lesson it was taught by our
culture and our government through the Exxon-Valdez spill. Change is
easy, quick, and cheap. Americans are hooked on oil, they aren’t going
to kick the habit anytime soon, and they have short memories -- so slap
on another new coat of paint and then get back to business as usual.
Transformation
is not easy, quick, or cheap. Bonhoeffer taught us all to be wary of
anyone who would peddle to us easy change, especially in the form of
cheap grace. This past weekend, Christians from more than 10 different
cities across this country came to Sojourners in groups of three or
more to attend Conspire, a faith and justice training conference. I had
the pleasure of speaking to and meeting with this small group of
Christian activists committed to forming faith and justice networks in
their cities across the country. They struggled through the fact that
while sending emails to Congress can be effective, they wanted to do
more. When they looked around at their neighborhoods and their cities,
they could see promise and potential but were not sure how to discern
their calling to see God’s spirit breaking through in those places. But
most of all, they were ready to sacrifice what was comfortable and easy
for what was hard but true. They trained for social change.
Sacrifice
starts in the humblest of all places -- with listening. It is in taking
the time and creating the space to listen for the leading of the spirit
and hear the voices of those who are not always heard that the stage is
set for sacrifice. We see and hear from the Gulf Coast more than is
comfortable, but have we begun to listen? More information is available
than ever before through cable news, blogs, and networking sites, but
are we still deaf to what is being said?
I believe it is time
for churches to listen to sister churches along the coast that are
being assaulted with the contamination of our oil addiction. It’s time
to listen to the people in churches we met along the Gulf Coast when
Hurricane Katrina brought us to them. It’s time for denominations to
listen and respond to the needs of their member churches that are
experiencing the trauma of fear, depression, disruption, and
destruction of livelihoods.
This week, Sojourners is emailing
our readers along the Gulf Coast to hear directly from Christians who
are being affected every day by the oil spill. For those of you who
feel overwhelmed by the images you see and the stories you hear, I want
to challenge you to participate in the spiritual act of listening and
discernment. Take an image of the contamination of creation and
meditate on it. Romans 8:22 says the whole earth groans. Can you hear
it? Read or listen to the story of a person whose livelihood has been
destroyed or who died on the oil rig. In 1 Corinthians 12:26, we read
that if one part of the body suffers, every part suffers with it. Can
you feel the suffering? Listen and pray. Act and sacrifice. Change and
be transformed. First we listen, then we decide what we will sacrifice
in service, action, and even lifestyle. And only then will we change.
A Time for Moral Reckoning
by Jim Wallis, June 3, 2010
I
am watching unbelievable pictures tonight of endless swaths of brown
oil mixed with the blue waters of the Gulf of Mexico, of dying wetlands
and marshes, of miles of contaminated coastlines, of dead birds and
animals, of helpless and hopeless Gulf Coast residents sadly witnessing
their livelihoods and their lives slipping away. With the explosion and
sinking of the BP oil rig six weeks ago,
the immediate talk was about environmental threats and technical fixes,
economic losses and political blaming, and debates about responsibility
for the costs. But with the failure of the latest attempt to stop the
spill, and with both BP and the federal government admitting they still
really don’t know how much oil has already spilled or will spill, a
national discussion is beginning about the fundamental moral issues at
stake, and perhaps even a national reflection on our whole way of life
based on oil dependence and addiction.
After the failure of “top
kills” and “cut and cap” strategies, it now appears the gushing of oil
into the sea could continue until at least August, or maybe even
longer. This could be one of those moments when the nation’s attention
all turns to the same thing, as in 9/11 and the days after Katrina. To
use an over-used phrase, this could be a “teachable moment,” but as
9/11 and Katrina demonstrated, we don’t necessarily learn the right
lessons from teachable moments. This time we had better do so.
First,
we have to change our language. This isn’t a little “spill,” it is an
environmental catastrophe -- the potential contamination of a whole
gulf (already a third is now off limits for fishing) and hundreds of
miles of coastline, and it threatens to expand to an ocean and more
coastlines. It will bring the destruction of critical wetlands,
endanger countless species, end human ways of life dependent upon the
sea, and now, it will increase the danger of a hurricane season that
could dump not just water, but waves of oil just miles inland from the
coasts.
Theologically, we are witnessing a massive despoiling of
God’s creation. We were meant to be stewards of the Gulf of Mexico, the
wetlands that protect and spawn life, the islands and beaches, and all
of God’s creatures who inhabit the marine world. But instead, we are
watching the destruction of all that. Why? Because of the greed for
profits; because of deception and lies; because of both private and
public irresponsibility. And at the root, because of an ethic of
endless economic growth, fueled by carbon-based fossil fuels, that is
ultimately unsustainable and unstable.
It’s not just that BP has
lied, even though they have -- over and over -- to cover up their
behavior and avoid their obligations. It is that BP is a lie; what it
stands for is a lie. It is a lie that we can continue to live this way,
a lie that our style of life is stable and sustainable, a lie that
these huge oil companies are really committed to a safe and renewable
energy future. BP should indeed be made to pay for this crime against
the creation -- likely with its very existence.
But I am also
reminded of what G.K. Chesterton once said when asked what was most
wrong with the world. He reportedly replied, “I am.” Already, we are
hearing some deeper reflection on the meaning of this daily disaster.
Almost everyone now apparently agrees with the new direction of a
“clean energy economy.” And we know that will require a re-wiring of
the energy grid (which many hope BP will have no part in). But it will
also require a re-wiring of ourselves -- our demands, requirements, and
insatiable desires. Our oil addiction has led us to environmental
destruction, endless wars, and the sacrifice of young lives, and it has
put our very souls in jeopardy. New York Times columnist Tom Freidman
recently wondered about the deeper meaning of the Great Recession when
he asked, “What if it’s telling us that the whole growth model we
created over the last fifty years is simply unsustainable economically
and ecologically and that 2008 was when we hit the wall -- when Mother
Nature and the market both said, ‘No More.’” The Great Spill makes the
point even more.
There is not one answer to this calamity; there
are many: corporate responsibility, for a change; serious government
regulation, for a change; public accountability, for a change; and real
civic mobilization to protect the endangered waters, coasts, species,
and people’s livelihoods. But at a deeper level, we literally need a
conversion of our habits of the heart, our energy sources, and our
lifestyle choices. And somebody will need to lead the way. Who will
dare to say that an economy of endless growth must be confronted and
converted to an economy of sustainability, to what the Bible calls
stewardship. What about the community of faith?
I am told this
morning that the smell of oil is already apparent in the parks and
playgrounds near the Mississippi coast. Unless this crisis in the Gulf
finally becomes the wake-up call that signals a new national commitment
to end our dependence on oil, our children may now be smelling their
future.
The first step forward is building awareness. Would you forward this SojoMail to 20 of your friends?
How Christian is Tea Party Libertarianism?
by Jim Wallis, May 27, 2010
The
insurgent Tea Party and its Libertarian philosophy is a political
phenomenon, not a religious one. Like the Democratic and Republican
parties it seeks to challenge, it is a secular movement, not a
Christian one. As with both major political parties, people who regard
themselves as Christians may be involved in, or sympathetic to, the new
Tea Party; but that doesn’t make it “Christian.” But like the
philosophies and policies of the major political parties, the Tea Party
can legitimately be examined on the basis of Christian principles --
and it should be.
Since the Tea Party is getting such national attention, our God’s Politics blog
is going to begin a dialogue on this question: Just how Christian is
the Tea Party Movement -- and the Libertarian political philosophy that
lies behind it? Let me start the dialogue here. And please join in.
Libertarianism
is a political philosophy that holds individual rights as its supreme
value and considers government the major obstacle. It tends to be
liberal on cultural and moral issues and conservative on fiscal,
economic, and foreign policy. This “just leave me alone and don’t spend
my money” option is growing quickly in American life, as we have seen
in the Tea Party movement. Libertarianism has been an undercurrent in
the Republican Party for some time, and has been in the news lately due
to the primary election win of Rand Paul as the Republican candidate
for a Senate seat in Kentucky. Paul has spoken like a true Libertarian,
as evidenced by some of his comments since that election last week.
He cited the Civil Rights Act as an example of government interference with the rights of private business. Paul told an interviewer
that he would have tried to change the provision in the 1964 Civil
Rights Act that made it illegal for private businesses to discriminate
on the basis of race. He answered a specific question about
desegregating lunch counters by countering, “Does the owner of the
restaurant own his restaurant? Or does the government own his
restaurant?”
A few days later, he spoke about the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. Referring to the Obama administration’s criticisms of BP, Paul said, “I think that sounds really un-American in his criticism of business.”
Is such a philosophy Christian? In several major aspects of biblical ethics, I would suggest that Libertarianism falls short.
1.
The Libertarian enshrinement of individual choice is not the
pre-eminent Christian virtue. Emphasizing individual rights at the
expense of others violates the common good, a central Christian
teaching and tradition. The Christian answer to the question “Are we
our brother’s keeper?” is decidedly “Yes.” Jesus tells us that the
greatest commandment is to love God and love our neighbor. Loving your
neighbor is a better Christian response than telling your neighbor to
leave you alone. Both compassion and social justice are fundamental
Christian commitments, and while the Christian community is responsible
for living out both, government is also held accountable to the
requirements of justice and mercy. Both Christians on the Right and the
Left have raised questions about Libertarian abandonment of the most
vulnerable -- whether that means unborn lives or the poor.
Just
look at the biblical prophets in their condemnation of injustice to the
poor, and how they frequently follow those statements by requiring the
king (the government) to act justly (a requirement that applied both to
the kings of Israel and to foreign potentates). Jeremiah, speaking of
King Josiah, said, “He defended the cause of the poor and needy, and so
all went well" (Jeremiah 22:16). Amos instructs the courts (the
government) to “Hate evil, love good; maintain justice in the courts”
(Amos 5:15). The prophets hold kings, rulers, judges, and employers
accountable to the demands of justice and mercy.
2. An
anti-government ideology just isn’t biblical. In Romans 13, the apostle
Paul (not the Kentucky Senate candidate) describes the role and
vocation of government; in addition to the church, government also
plays a role in God’s plan and purposes. Preserving the social order,
punishing evil and rewarding good, and protecting the common good are
all prescribed; we are even instructed to pay taxes for those purposes!
Sorry, Tea Party. Of course, debating the size and role of government
is always a fair and good discussion, and most of us would prefer smart
and effective to “big” or “small” government.
Revelation 13
depicts the state as a totalitarian beast -- a metaphor for Rome, which
was persecuting the Christians. This passage serves as a clear warning
about the abuse of governmental power. But a power-hungry government is
clearly an aberration and violation of the proper role of government in
protecting its citizens and upholding the demands of fairness and
justice. To disparage government per se -- to see government as the
central problem in society -- is simply not a biblical position.
3.
The Libertarians’ supreme confidence in the market is not consistent
with a biblical view of human nature and sin. The exclusive focus on
government as the central problem ignores the problems of other social
sectors, and in particular, the market. When government regulation is
the enemy, the market is set free to pursue its own self-interest
without regard for public safety, the common good, and the protection
of the environment -- which Christians regard as God’s creation.
Libertarians seem to believe in the myth of the sinless market and that
the self-interest of business owners or corporations will serve the
interests of society; and if they don’t, it’s not government’s role to
correct it.
But such theorizing ignores the practical issues
that the public sector has to solve. Should big oil companies like BP
simply be allowed to spew oil into the ocean? And is regulating them
really un-American? Do we really want nobody to inspect our meat, make
sure our kids’ toys are safe, or police the polluters to keep our air
clean? Do we really want owners of restaurants and hotels to be able to
decide whom they will or won’t serve, or should liquor store owners
also be able to sell alcohol to our kids? Given the reality of sin in
all human institutions, doesn’t a political process that provides both
accountability and checks and balances make both theological and
practical sense? C.S. Lewis once said that we need democracy not
because people are essentially good, but because they often are not.
Democratic accountability is essential to preventing the market from
becoming a beast of corporate totalitarianism – just as it is essential
for the government. And God’s priorities should determine ours, not the
priorities of the Chamber of Commerce.
4. The Libertarian
preference for the strong over the weak is decidedly un-Christian.
“Leave me alone to make my own choices and spend my own money” is a
political philosophy that puts those who need help at a real
disadvantage. And those who need help are central to any Christian
evaluation of political philosophy. “As you have done to the least of
these,” says Jesus, “You have done to me.” And “Blessed are those who
are just left alone” has still not made the list of Beatitudes. To
anticipate the Libertarian response, let me just say that private
charity is simply not enough to satisfy the demands of either fairness
or justice, let alone compassion. When the system is designed to
protect the privileges of the already strong and make the weak even
more defenseless and vulnerable, something is wrong with the system.
5.
Finally, I am just going to say it. There is something wrong with a
political movement like the Tea Party which is almost all white. Does
that mean every member of the Tea Party is racist? Likely not. But is
an undercurrent of white resentment part of the Tea Party ethos, and
would there even be a Tea Party if the president of the United States
weren’t the first black man to occupy that office? It’s time we had
some honest answers to that question. And as far as I can tell,
Libertarianism has never been much of a multi-cultural movement. Need I
say that racism -- overt, implied, or even subtle -- is not a Christian
virtue.
So that should get us started. Let’s have the dialogue
about how Christian the Tea Party Movement and its Libertarian
philosophy really are. Jump in!
Glenn Beck Attacks Churches on Climate Change
by Jim Wallis, May 20, 2010
I
thought Glenn Beck must have moved on to other things, but the other
night, he went back to his attack on social justice churches. This time
the issue was climate change.
I continue to ask Beck for a
two-way conversation about this very important issue -- the biblical
meaning of social justice. But so far he hasn’t been willing to talk.
So I went ahead with our dialogue without him when he took up the
subject of immigration. So let’s call this dialogue #2, still without brother Beck.
One
of the major stories dominating the news, of course, is the worsening
oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. The spill is growing, with the first
oil now washing into the Louisiana coast marshlands, and fishing now
prohibited in 19 percent of the Gulf. Fears are that the oil will reach
the Florida Keys, then enter the Gulf Stream and move up the East Coast.
This deepening disaster simply underscores the need for real energy and climate legislation that can begin to wean us from our addiction to oil,
which I wrote about last week. One significant part of such legislation
is new efforts to encourage buildings that are more energy efficient --
“green” buildings -- even including churches.
Yet, to Glenn
Beck, this is socialism, as is everything he doesn’t agree with
politically. So he said this week that “churches are being used by
progressives to help bring about the fundamental transformation of
America.”
Beck attacked the President’s Advisory Council on Faith-based and Neighborhood Partnerships, on which I served:
If
I had told you five years ago that this government would bypass the
Congress -- and thus you -- and go through the EPA to get climate
change done, by having them declare that when you exhale you poison the
air, you wouldn't have believed it.
And, if I had added that the
government is going to merge with churches under Democrats, you'd have
said I was stark raving insane ... Your church is being attacked
through a faith-based initiative headed up by Barack Obama's
Administration ... churches are being used by progressives to help
bring about the fundamental transformation of America.
He went on to say:
Obama's
Advisory Council on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships recently
issued its report of recommendations and the Obama administration is
about to take faith-based initiatives to a whole new level. The
president's council envisions the government and religion partnering to
push the good news of global warming, climate change and green issues.
Yes, the religion of environmental and social justice ... Your church
is either for socialist government or the living of the gospel and you
need to know which one they are teaching.
It is actually the
other way around -- the faith community is pushing the government,
rather than the government using us. The section of the Council’s report on “Environment and Climate Change” noted that:
There
is a new and unprecedented wave of interest in environmental
sustainability and climate change among America’s diverse religious
communities and in neighborhoods across the country. Faith- and other
community-based nonprofit institutions are in the unique position of
serving as visible examples to the community. Houses of worship can
exert a powerful influence when they practice good energy stewardship
and preach and teach about conservation as a moral value, it has a
powerful influence.
We don’t call that socialism, we call it
stewardship of God’s creation. “Creation care” has become a mainstream
concern among Evangelical, Catholic, and Mainline churches alike --
especially for a new generation of Christians. The recommendations of
the President’s Council went on to say:
The importance of
engaging with religious organizations in addressing climate change and
environmental concerns has become even clearer -- as has the importance
of faith-based organizations taking a prominent leadership role in
influencing policy, education, and action in those areas. The more than
370,000 houses of worship alone provide locations for information to be
shared, training to take place, and modeling of best environmental
practices to occur.
You see, Glenn, most of our faith
traditions believe that God created this earth, proclaimed it good, and
gave us the mandate to serve and protect it. Yet, for thousands of
years, we have abused and destroyed it. It is our role as stewards of
creation that spurs us to take leadership in urging the government to
do its part. This is a biblical concern of ours, not a Marxist one as
you keep suggesting.
Glenn, this line of attack against the
faith community is a wrong one for you. I thought you might have
realized that in the flood of responses from so many pastors and church
leaders (including your own Mormon church) to your earlier accusations
that social justice is “code” for Marxism, socialism, and Nazism.
You’re wrong, and I thought you were beginning to see that. But I guess
I was wrong, as you have gone on the warpath again against the
community of faith. This is about our faith, not our politics; and the
truth is that your attack is really just about your politics.
If
caring for creation, addressing poverty, and fixing our broken
immigration system are part of the “fundamental transformation” that
you are talking about, then yes, churches are being used to help bring
about fundamental transformation -- but they are being used by God, not
politics. So if you are going to keep up your assault on the gospel
commitment to justice that we have in our churches, please be honest
enough and courageous enough to have the open and public dialogue I
invited you to several weeks ago. Why are you afraid of that
conversation when it’s a two- way discussion? Perhaps you know that
it’s not our political ideology that would be revealed, but yours. The
offer still stands, Glenn. Let’s talk.
+Click here to tell Glenn Beck you’re a social justice Christian
A Step Toward Recovery from Our Oil Addiction
by Jim Wallis, May 13, 2010
My mother taught her children never to “toot our own horn.” So last year, when Sojourners
became the first publication ever (so far as I know) to win the best
general interest magazine awards from both the Associated Church Press
and the Evangelical Press Association in the same year, we mentioned
it, but were quite modest about it. The ACP is mostly made up of
mainline Protestant and Catholic publications, and the EPA is the major
association of Evangelical magazines and newspapers. To win highest
honors at both conventions is a major accomplishment in this era of
polarization, not only in politics, but in the church.
From the
research we have done in the past 24 hours, no other publication has
received both of these awards in the same year -- at least since the
days of the early church. (Though I must say, first century records of
publication awards are a bit thin.) Apparently, there was a running
competition between hand-carried letters (sometimes called epistles)
put out by editorial teams in both Corinth and Ephesus.
So I’m sorry, Mom... but since Sojourners
magazine won both awards again this year, I have to say a word about
why I think this is a big deal, and why it makes me very grateful for
our mission and our staff. To be able to speak across the whole
spectrum of church life in times like these is very encouraging to me.
Our mission statement is “to articulate the biblical call to social
justice.” And these awards are important because of the way they show
how central social justice has become to so many of our churches
(sorry, Glenn Beck). In particular, it demonstrates how a new
generation of Christians want their faith to make a real difference,
both in their lives and in the world. They share our strong commitment
to demonstrate God’s love for this world and God’s compassion for the
poor in particular. I meet them all over the country and around the
world -- half of our audiences now are under thirty. And many of them
are looking to Sojourners to help them put their faith into action.
Nothing could make me happier.
Some of the best of this new
generation work for Sojourners, and we are lucky to have them. Our
whole team deserves credit for these wonderful awards. I have little to
do anymore with the day-to-day operation of Sojourners
magazine, and I am very proud of the people who do -- a combination of
veteran writers and editors along with a core of young communicators
for a new age of social media. Watching them do what they do is a great
fulfillment of what a few of us envisioned when we were the young
writers and editors with a new mission to combine personal faith with
social justice.
But enough talking about awards. Okay, Mom -- now back to the mission.
Yesterday,
the long-awaited announcement of a new energy and climate bill finally
occurred in the United States Senate. On hand were Senators John Kerry
and Joe Lieberman, environmentalists, business leaders (including some
from the energy industry), and even a few faith leaders. Now we get to
see the actual bill, and we can begin to evaluate it. Like all things
political, this bill will be full of compromises and concessions to get
the necessary support for passage. Nonetheless, it promises to be the
beginning, and just the beginning, of a new direction in America’s
energy future; it could mark a turn away from oil and fossil fuels
toward cleaner and renewable energy sources. The attempt is to start
mitigating the effects of climate change and to begin the critical
process of adapting to a new energy future. For that adaptation, much
more help will be needed for the world’s poorest people and regions
than this bill (in its current form) delivers.
Larry Schweiger,
president of the National Wildlife Federation (and a person of faith),
raised a prophetic word when he spoke of our “addiction” to oil.
Addictions, as many people have discovered, eventually make your life
not work anymore. And that is what has happened to the U.S. and the
world -- our oil addiction is making things not work. The list of
consequences is long -- from critical climate changes, to the loss of
jobs, to supplying money for terrorists, to sacrificing the lives of
our young people in wars over oil, to watching an oil spill that nobody
seems to know how to stop pour hundreds of thousands of gallons each
day into the Gulf of Mexico.
At a deep level, what’s not working
in the U.S. is our lifestyle -- particularly the consumerist energy
habits we showcase to the rest of the world. Moving toward a “clean
energy economy” will require more than just a re-wiring of the energy
grid; it will also take a re-wiring of ourselves -- a conversion,
really, of our habits of the heart. We must adjust our expectations,
demands, and values.
Jim Ball, president of the Evangelical
Environmental Network, says this bill is like the starter’s gun at the
beginning of a race. We have to start running in a different direction,
and this bill would allow us to do that. But it will only be the start
of a long marathon that will be completed by our children and
grandchildren -- a marathon to overcome our addiction and be better
stewards of our earth, our economy, our international relations, and
finally, our souls.
Glenn Beck, Immigration, and Social Justice
by Jim Wallis, May 6, 2010
After
Glenn Beck said “social justice is a perversion of the gospel” and a
“code” for Marxism, communism, and Nazism, I invited him to a public
dialogue to discuss the true meaning of social justice, which I said
was at the heart of the gospel and integral to biblical faith.
In
response, Beck promised on his radio show that “the hammer” would be
coming down on me and my organization, and that he would devote a week
of his television show to bringing me down. I took that as a “no” to
dialogue.
But I would still like to have this discussion with
Beck. Since he has attacked the whole concept of “social justice,” I
think it would be a great opportunity to have a serious public
conversation about what biblical social justice really means. But since
he has so far refused to have that conversation, I have decided to go
ahead with it anyway -- even without him -- with the hope that he will
eventually join the discussion. In the meantime, let me take some of
the things he has recently said about social justice and begin to
respond to him. And I hope he will take this as an open and standing invitation
to a civil and moral dialogue with him about the topic of social
justice. This is a challenge to Glenn Beck to have a real and honest
two-way public discussion.
So Glenn... you recently talked about the new Arizona law
requiring all state law enforcement officers to ask for identity
documents of anyone they have “lawful contact” with and “reasonably
suspect” of being undocumented, and to detain them if they are. Many
fear racial profiling and are concerned that the only people required
to carry papers will be those who might look illegal, i.e. have brown
skin. The new law also makes it illegal to “harbor” or “transport”
undocumented people, or even to be found with them. This has made many
Christian clergy and church workers say the new law would make
Christian compassion and ministry illegal, and if it does, they won’t
obey it.
You are vigorously in favor of the new law. But I would
suggest that the solution to the 12 million undocumented workers now in
this country isn’t demanding identity papers and threatening
deportation, but working to change the conditions that lead people to
come here without papers in the first place. Decades of neglect and
irresponsibility by both parties -- liberals and conservatives -- have
created this inhumane and complicated problem. We have had two
invisible signs on our southern border: “No Trespassing” and “Help
Wanted.” Those conflicting messages have ensnared many vulnerable and
sometimes desperate people. And now we need to fix that broken
immigration system that is grinding up vulnerable families.
You
said, “America, this is what you have to understand: equal justice, not
social justice. Equal justice of the law demands that law-breakers not
be rewarded for their illegal activity, that instead they be treated
like everyone else,” and that “equal justice” means when anyone comes
to the United States illegally, they should be deported.
Glenn,
I wish you could have been with me to meet a woman in Phoenix just two
weeks ago. Yes, she came here illegally -- as an infant, on her
farm-worker father’s back 47 years ago. Her whole life has been here,
her children are here, and now she works for a Christian ministry
taking care of vulnerable people. Is she really a threat to us? Should
she just be deported? Or should we together reform the immigration
system in a fair, humane, and compassionate way?
You said, “Equal justice says she's got to go home.” Glenn, she is home.
You
said, “Equal justice means if you live in the U.S. -- I've got to be
here legally. I can't commit identity theft and fraud and neither
should illegal aliens.” Well, we all want to be a nation of laws, so
let’s find a way to bring people out of the shadows. Let’s be tough on
crime, but give those whose lives are now here, and who are law-abiding
and are contributing to our society, a chance to start an earned path
to citizenship. Wouldn’t that be social justice?
In a letter to
you that you never answered I said, “Social justice [is] a personal
commitment both to serve the poor and to attack the conditions that
lead to poverty” and that “biblical justice also involves changing
structures, institutions, systems, and policies, as well as changing
hearts to be more generous.” What do you think about that?
Serving
the poor, as you said, is a fundamental spiritual requirement of faith;
but challenging the conditions that create poverty, or bad messy
problems like our current immigration system, is also part of biblical
social justice. Isn’t it?
Glenn, this new Arizona law would break up families. You don’t want to see that, do you?
You
said, “You know the statue of justice? She is blindfolded. She doesn't
care if it's religion or race or whatever. Justice is blind. Stop using
justice as a political weapon or for doing favors for those who agree
with your ideology.” Do you really think that the execution of justice
in the U.S. has always been colorblind? Will this new law be
colorblind? I think you know better than that.
Your definition
of “equal justice” requires that every person be treated equally. So in
Arizona, that means the police should be authorized to ask every person
they stop for a traffic violation for proof of citizenship. There
should be no discretion for those who they have a “reasonable
suspicion” are undocumented. In practice, “reasonable suspicion” likely
means those with darker skin or a Spanish accent. How do they know that
the Caucasian who just ran a red light is not an undocumented immigrant
from Canada or France? Or that the darker-skinned Hispanic isn’t a
third-generation U.S. citizen? Do we really want a society like Nazi
Germany or apartheid South Africa, where all people are required to
carry passbooks with documentation of their status? “Reasonable
suspicion” is not equal justice; it is a false solution to a real
problem. The law itself is unjust, and "equal" application of an unjust
law is still unjust, regardless of how "equally" it is applied.
Equal
justice focuses on individuals. Social justice urges that we work to
change the conditions that lead people to come to this country, rather
than singling out people that the authorities suspect might be
undocumented. The solution to 12 million undocumented people is to fix
a broken immigration system, not to demand identity papers. Biblical
justice involves standing with the most vulnerable, as well as changing
structures, institutions, systems, and policies, especially in
democratic governments where we have the opportunity to do so.
So Glenn, let’s talk about this.
+Click here to tell Glenn Beck you're a social justice Christian
 Wall Street, Repent!
by Jim Wallis, April 29, 2010
We
are all familiar with the famous pop culture image of a street
evangelist holding up a sign reading, “Repent, for the end is near!”
But repentance is actually a fundamental religious theme, and one
that’s often misunderstood. This week, one could imagine a group of
pastors, priests, rabbis, and imams holding up a sign on Wall Street
for the titans of the financial industry to see, reading, “Repent, or
the end could be near again.”
The biblical meaning of repentance
is to turn around, and start a new path. In a religious framework, it
means realizing you have made a moral mistake, and deciding to change
your behavior. It’s not enough to feel guilty or sorry for something;
genuine repentance requires a change in decisions and actions, by
moving in a different direction. Merely admitting you were wrong is not
enough. You have to change.
In the past few months, I’ve had
serious conversations with financial leaders about ethics, morality,
and even faith. Some come like Nicodemus – a religious leader who came
to talk to Jesus in private – at night. Many have felt remorseful about
what happened on Wall Street and how it has hurt so many people. They
describe the behavior in their profession with words such as “greedy,”
“risky,” or “reckless.” These business and banking leaders do feel
sorry, but repentance means that remorse must be coupled with a change
in the behaviors that led to the problems.
Those who led us down
the path to financial ruin – causing millions of people to lose their
homes, jobs, and savings – now have some serious repenting to do. Yet,
this week’s testimony by Goldman Sachs executives before a Senate
committee investigating the bankers’ role in the economic collapse made
it clear that repentance and accountability were far from their minds.
When
you preach, one of the most important parts of preparing is selecting a
text relevant to the issue of the day. And the clear and obvious
biblical text for this crisis is 1 Timothy 6:9-10. “But those who want
to be rich fall into temptation and are trapped by many senseless and
harmful desires that plunge people into ruin and destruction. For the
love of money is a root of all kinds of evil ?” Or, as Jesus succinctly
put it, “You cannot serve God and wealth” (Matthew 6:24).
The
critics of Wall Street call it putting self-interest above the public
interest. But the Bible would just call it a sin. We could call it the
sin of putting profit and personal gain above the common good, the good
of your customers and consumers, and even your investors. And there are
times when outside pressure is needed to change destructive behaviors –
times like now.
Americans have always had a love-hate
relationship with government and business. The climate shifts like a
pendulum between eras of an “anything goes” mentality and periods of
more careful public oversight and government regulation. The excesses
of the 1920s, leading to the Great Depression, were followed by the
reforms of Franklin Roosevelt – including the creation of the
Securities and Exchange Commission, the Federal Deposit Insurance
Corporation, and new rules of the road for banks and investment
companies intended to protect citizens from excessive risk and abuse.
But over the last 40 years, many of these regulations were relaxed (by
both Republicans and Democrats dependent on the political contributions
of Wall Street), while new financial realities developed for which
there were no regulations.
Because of the Great Recesssion, a
new financial regulation debate is now raging in the Senate. And while
religious leaders should not get into the details or partisan
wranglings, there are some principles that – from a moral and even
religious viewpoint – should guide those deliberations.
First,
provide transparency and accountability. Given the human condition and
the many temptations of money, we need transparency and accountability
in financial markets and instruments, including high-risk and
questionable ones such as the now infamous “derivatives.” To protect
the common good, we need to enact greater regulation and oversight of
all elements of the banking industry.
Second, provide consumer
protection. Any pastor can now tell you stories of how parishioners
were mistreated, cheated, and damaged by current banking practices.
Many clergy strongly favor protecting consumers from predatory
financial practices. They want a strong independent Consumer Finance
Protection Agency, with jurisdiction and enforcement power over all
companies in the financial sector, in order to protect people from
fraudulent, misleading, and abusive practices.
Third, limit size
and risk, so banks are no longer too big to fail – and are bailed out
at public expense. This means setting limits on the size of financial
institutions and the risks they can take. Ban bank ownership of private
investment funds, and establish an orderly process to dissolve a
failing bank, in order to avoid future taxpayer bailouts. Give a
stronger voice to shareholders and investors in institutional practices
and policies – including determining the executive compensation of
companies, and the now infamous bank executive bonuses.
These
principles – clarity, transparency, accountability, and protecting the
common good against private greed – are not just economic policy
matters. On a more transcendent level, they provide the metrics of real
repentance for those who have behaved badly and now must change. So
let’s have some sermons on the repentance of Wall Street, some pastoral
care for the financial giants who sit in our pews, and maybe even some
prayer vigils outside of the nation’s biggest banks. If the banks fail
to repent, another financial meltdown could be very near.
Arizona's Immigration Bill is a Social and Racial Sin
by Jim Wallis, April 22, 2010
I
got up at 4:30 a.m. on Tuesday morning to fly to Phoenix, Arizona, to
speak at a press conference and rally at the State Capitol at the
invitation of the state’s clergy and other leaders in the immigration
reform movement. The harshest enforcement bill in the country against
undocumented immigrants just passed the Arizona state House and Senate,
and is only awaiting the signature of Governor Janet Brewer to become
law.
Senate Bill 1070 would require law enforcement officials in
the state of Arizona to investigate someone’s immigration status if
there is “reasonable suspicion” that the person might be undocumented.
I wonder who that would be, and if anybody who doesn’t have brown skin
will be investigated. Those without identification papers, even if they
are legal, are subject to arrest; so don’t forget your wallet on your
way to work if you are Hispanic in Arizona. You can also be arrested if
you are stopped and are simply with people who are undocumented -- even
if they are your family. Parents or children of “mixed-status families”
(made up of legal and undocumented, as many immigrant families are out
here) could be arrested if they are found together. You can be arrested
if you are “transporting or harboring” undocumented people. Some might
consider driving immigrant families to and from church to be Christian
ministry -- but it will now be illegal in Arizona.
For the first
time, all law enforcement officers in the state will be enlisted to
hunt down undocumented people, which will clearly distract them from
going after truly violent criminals, and will focus them on mostly
harmless families whose work supports the economy and who contribute to
their communities. And do you think undocumented parents will now go to
the police if their daughter is raped or their family becomes a victim
of violent crime? Maybe that’s why the state association of police
chiefs is against SB 1070.
This proposed law is not only
mean-spirited -- it will be ineffective and will only serve to further
divide communities in Arizona, making everyone more fearful and less
safe. This radical new measure, which crosses many moral and legal
lines, is a clear demonstration of the fundamental mistake of
separating enforcement from comprehensive immigration reform. We all
want to live in a nation of laws, and the immigration system in the
U.S. is so broken that it is serving no one well. But enforcement
without reform of the system is merely cruel. Enforcement without
compassion is immoral. Enforcement that breaks up families is
unacceptable. And enforcement of this law would force us to violate our
Christian conscience, which we simply will not do. It makes it illegal
to love your neighbor in Arizona.
Before the rally and press
event, I visited some immigrant families who work at Neighborhood
Ministries, an impressive community organization affiliated with
Sojourners’ friends at the Christian Community Development Association.
I met a group of women who were frightened by the raids that have been
occurring, in which armed men invade their homes and neighborhoods with
guns and helicopters. When the rumors of massive raids spread, many of
these people flee both their homes and their workplaces, and head for
The Church at The Neighborhood Center as the only place they feel safe
and secure. But will police invade the churches if they are suspected
of “harboring” undocumented people, because it is the law? Will the
nurse practitioner I met at their medical clinic serving only uninsured
people be arrested for being “with” the children of families who are
here illegally as she treats them?
At the rally,
I started with the words of Jesus (which drew cheers from the crowd
gathered at the State Capitol), who instructed his disciples to
“welcome the stranger,” and said that whatever we do to “the least of
these, who are members of my family” we do to him. I think that means
that to obey Jesus and his gospel will mean to disobey SB 1070 in
Arizona. I looked at the governor’s Executive Tower and promised that
many Christians in Arizona won’t comply with this law because the
people they will target will be members of our “family” in the body of
Christ. And any attack against them is an attack against us, and the
One we follow.
Catholic Cardinal Roger Mahony of Los Angeles just called this Arizona measure
“the country’s most retrogressive, mean-spirited, and useless
immigration law” in the land. On CNN, I defended the Cardinal’s
comments, which likened the requirement of people always carrying their
“papers” to the most oppressive regimes of Nazism and Communism. I
wonder whether the tea party movement that rails against government
intrusion will rail against this law, or whether those who resist the
forced government registration of their guns will resist the forced
government requirement that immigrants must always carry their
documentation. Will the true conservatives please stand up here? We are
all waiting.
Arizona’s SB 1070 must be named as a social and
racial sin, and should be denounced as such by people of faith and
conscience across the nation. This is not just about Arizona, but about
all of us, and about what kind of country we want to be. It’s time to
stand up to this new strategy of “deportation by attrition,” which I
heard for the first time today in Arizona. It is a policy of deliberate
political cruelty, and it should be remembered that “attrition” is a
term of war. Arizona is deciding whether to wage war on the body of
Christ. We should say that if you come after one part of the body, you
come after all of us.
This Isn’t About Wallis vs. Beck -- It’s About Biblical Social Justice
by Jim Wallis, April 15, 2010
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.
A Covenant for Civility
by Jim Wallis, April 8, 2010
The
political polarization of our society has now reached a new and
dangerous level. Honest disagreements over policy issues have turned
into a growing vitriolic rage against political opponents, and even
threats of violence against lawmakers are now being credibly reported.
Just
a few months ago, a deeply concerned, veteran member of Congress called
me to express real despair about the alarming level of disrespect,
personal attacks, and even hateful rhetoric that was occurring among
her colleagues -- reflecting a degeneration of public debate in our
national culture. This month, another member of Congress called to
express real fear about threats of violence he and other elected
officials had experienced against themselves and their family members.
Political debate, even vigorous debate, is a healthy thing for a
democracy; but to question the integrity, patriotism, and even faith of
those with whom we disagree is destructive to democratic discourse, and
to threaten or even imply the possibility of violence toward those
whose politics or worldview differs from ours is a sign of moral
danger, and indeed, a sign of democracy’s unraveling.
Both
members are people of faith and were calling to ask for help from the
community of faith to lead in this dangerous moment and to begin to
help heal what was becoming an increasingly alarming and frightening
situation. I recently had lunch with a friend, a political conservative
with whom I both agree and disagree on various policy issues. He
expressed his real discouragement over how more and more Americans now
get their news and information from only highly ideological and
partisan media sources with whom they already agree, and who daily fuel
the most passionate emotions of their loyal followers -- on both sides
of the political aisle.
So for several months, a group of
Christian leaders have been praying, talking, and discerning how the
churches might lead by example to help create a more civil and moral
tone in our national politics. We have confessed that, too often,
Christians have merely reflected the political divisions in the body
politic instead of trying to heal them in the body of Christ. People of
faith from all our religious traditions could help create much-needed
safe, civil, and even sacred spaces for better public discourse at this
critical moment in our nation’s history. What has come from our
prayerful discernment is “A Covenant for Civility: Come Let Us Reason
Together.” Church leaders from across the political and theological
spectrum -- who have voted Democratic, Republican, and Independent in
recent elections -- have come together around this civility covenant,
and the breadth of the signatories is a powerful statement in and of
itself. Together we offer what we feel is a strong biblical statement
motivated by deep concern about our present situation; we are now
inviting thousands of other pastors and lay people in all of our
churches to sign this covenant and then seek to implement it in our
congregations, communities, and nation.
The Covenant for Civility begins:
As
Christian pastors and leaders with diverse theological and political
beliefs, we have come together to make this covenant with each other,
and to commend it to the church, faith-based organizations, and
individuals, so that together we can contribute to a more civil
national discourse. The church in the United States can offer a message
of hope and reconciliation to a nation that is deeply divided by
political and cultural differences. Too often, however, we have
reflected the political divisions of our culture rather than the unity
we have in the body of Christ. We come together to urge those who claim
the name of Christ to “put away from you all bitterness and wrath and
anger and wrangling and slander, together with all malice, and be kind
to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, as God in Christ
has forgiven you” (Ephesians 4:31-32).
I offer the full text of the covenant here (as well as a link to the list of initial signers) and ask our readers and friends to consider both signing on
and acting to make the commitments of this covenant in our lives and
faith communities -- and offer a much-needed prophetic witness to the
nation at this time of crisis.
We need to behave differently,
for both the sake of our spiritual integrity and the health of our
democracy. We have forgotten some of the key values of faith: respect,
truth, honesty, humility, patience, kindness, confession, forgiveness,
prayer, and the unity of the body of Christ. It is time to recover them
again. Let the change we call for begin with us.
Jim Wallis and Glenn Beck Meet for Social Justice Dialogue
by Jim Wallis, April 1, 2010
On
the eve of Good Friday, recognizing that sad and tragic events often
dominate the headlines, airwaves, and even our own blog, a dose of the
"best medicine" might help us all make it through to the joy of Easter.
With
that in mind, here's some surprising news: Though Jim Wallis is
allegedly on vacation with his family this week, we were able to obtain
footage of a top secret meeting between Jim and Fox News commentator
Glenn Beck! Apparently, Beck finally accepted Jim's offer to dialogue,
and the two met in an undisclosed location. You may not recognize their
faces in the video, because they are wearing disguises to avoid the
media spotlight while discussing such a sensitive topic. But we think
you'll find their conversation a truly fascinating and unforgettable
tete-a-tete. Click here to watch the video.
We
sincerely hope that you enjoyed this little April Fools' Day project in
the spirit in which it was intended -- just good fun, and a needed
break from the usual trials and tribulations. All quotes were
scrupulously pulled from relevant in-context references (except for
Jim's last one!) and no phrases were artificially reconstructed to make
someone say anything they didn't originally mean. (That was last year's Rush Limbaugh video.)
Perhaps some day such a conversation could really take place, but until
then, may we all live in the joy and hope of Easter, in expectation of
the miracle of reconciliation through the love of Jesus Christ!
+Seriously now, click here to join this conversation and let Glenn Beck know that you're a social justice Christian too!
A Million Christians for Social Justice
by Jim Wallis, March 25, 2010
Sometimes, the timing of events seems almost providential.
For
more than a year, Sojourners has been discussing and planning to launch
a campaign called A Million Christians for Social Justice.
We
have talked, dreamed, and prayed about the possibility and power of
bringing together, from across the life of the churches, the many
voices that are calling for social justice. It’s many of us now:
Evangelicals and mainline Protestants, Catholics and Pentecostals,
Black, Hispanic, and Asian-American churches -- focusing our personal
faith on the most urgent public issues our world is now facing. From
human trafficking to HIV/AIDS, from inner-city education to global
poverty, from racial justice to nuclear weapons, from immigrant
families to access to health care, from the status of women and girls
to conflict resolution in the Middle East, from creation care to
homelessness -- Christian voices are being heard and people of faith
are mobilizing.
We are all being called to a deeper commitment
to Jesus Christ and to living out his kingdom of love and justice. A
stronger and authentic voice with moral authority beyond mere partisan
politics needs to be heard on social justice. That voice can both speak
truth to power and bring people together across cultural and political
lines to act for justice.
Glenn Beck’s attacks on deeply held
Christian principles of social justice have ironically brought newfound
attention, focus, and discussion about what it truly means to be a
“social justice Christian.” As wrong and often vitriolic his
caricatures, insults, and attacks on such core gospel teachings and
biblical tenets have been, they have provided what is often called a
“teachable moment” and perhaps, a mobilizing moment as well. The Beck
attack on Christian social justice has given us an opportunity to teach
what true gospel principles are and offers us an opportunity to reach
out to even more people who are being attracted by the biblical call to
social justice -- which is the mission statement of Sojourners.
So
we are now discerning whether this is the right time to move beyond the
discussions, and as Congressman John Lewis says, to "put some feet on
our prayers" and launch “A Million Christians for Social Justice.”
Sure,
we'd be responding to Glenn Beck. But we believe we'd really be
responding to our own calling to stand up for the poor and vulnerable
and to stand against the conditions, institutions, and polices that
further poverty. It could be a moment to speak out and to serve. The
attacks of poverty on vulnerable families and children, the attacks of
hunger on entire communities, the attacks of economic inequities on
hardworking people, the attacks of war on civilians who get caught in
the cross-fire, are all much harsher attacks than anything Beck can
hurl at us. These are the attacks we must address. These are the
attacks we are called to fight.
A Million Christians for Social
Justice will bring us together to fight injustice and inequality, to
fight hunger and hopelessness, and ultimately, to love and nourish all
the souls that are a part of God's creation -- and to do so in the name
of Jesus.
By adding your voice as one of a million, you will
allow us to work toward building a large and active network to help
people find each other, as well as to find kindred spirits and churches
in their own communities; you’ll help connect people and churches who
want to work on the same issues, and share both vital resources and
stories for deepening our understanding and commitment to faith-based
social justice; and when needed, your voice will help focus our
attention, energy, and a united prophetic voice on urgent matters of
common concern. That will require an investment in new technology and
expert staff, something hard to do in the current economic climate
without the assurance that there's a movement behind us to help make it
happen.
Your honest feedback is important. Join us in making
this decision. Join us in prayer and join us with your comments,
responses, and finally, your commitment. Do you like the vision of A
Million Christians for Social Justice? Has the time for such a movement
finally come?
So we want to try this out with you. Would you
join such a network and movement of faith and action? Would you be one
of a million voices connecting, speaking, and acting in a common
witness? We can create change in our society, and indeed are called to.
To make this a reality, we need a strong indication from our constituents that this campaign is the way to go: Click here to leave a comment on our blog and tell us your ideas.
Pray Immigration Reform Into Passage
by Jim Wallis, March 18, 2010
On Sunday, a major march for immigration
reform will take place in Washington, D.C. Tens of thousands of people
will gather to call on the White House to lead, and put forward an
immigration reform bill whose time has come. We will march and we will
pray. And the following morning, a high-level delegation of religious
leaders will meet with key White House officials to press the same
message. There are both Democrats and Republicans who in the past have
said they supported comprehensive immigration reform, and so there
ought now to be bipartisan support for such a bill. But in the
ultra-partisan and poisoned atmosphere of the U.S. Congress now,
bipartisan spirit has fled the halls of power. In Washington, politics
is now just a game of win and lose, and it’s only about the next
election; the process of politics in the nation’s capital is no longer
about solving problems. But the problem is that there are children and
families in the balance, and the politicians are now playing politics
with the lives of vulnerable people. Those people are our brothers and
sisters, they are our parishioners, and they are children of God. And
the faith community has come together to say the time for politics over
compassion is over.
The number of deportations in this
administration’s first year is higher than previous years, meaning more
broken lives, more families torn apart. That is not what we meant by
change. The president and members of Congress continue to assert their
support for immigration reform; but actions speak louder than words. We
all know that Congress is hesitant to tackle tough issues before
mid-term elections. But comprehensive reform legislation must be
introduced, and must be passed. We don’t want more verbal commitments,
we want action.
While politicians can write off one more piece
of legislation on a packed agenda, they won’t be able to write off, or
ignore, a movement rooted in our faith communities. If our political
leaders won’t make room for the “strangers” among us, we will --
because Jesus commands us to do so. It’s time to stop playing politics
with people’s lives.
We will surround our political leaders with the stories of suffering and pray this reform into passage.
The faith community is united on the moral imperative of this issue
like nothing we’ve seen in years, and we will do all it takes to see
this cause move forward. At this crucial turning point, we must take
the call of our scriptures seriously and act prophetically for justice.
If Washington fails to make room for the strangers in our midst, we
need to make it clear to Washington that we will do it ourselves, and
not leave them alone until they do what’s right.
For many of us,
faith is a catalyst to action that can solve the really big issues —
and this is one of the biggest we face now. People of faith need to
look beyond the political calculations and see this for the moral and
family crisis it is. It will take people of faith to knock down the
doors of Congress and bring the stories of immigrant friends,
neighbors, and family members as evidence of the injustices that are
experienced on a daily basis. Finally, we need faith in a God who is
larger than we can imagine, the God who weeps as we humans build border
walls to separate ourselves from our brothers and sisters on the other
side, the God of justice who isn’t persuaded by the political
timetables of Washington, D.C.
This is the message we will take
to the streets of Washington on Sunday, and to the White House on
Monday. We will boldly declare that it is morally wrong to keep
families apart, and that it is morally right to fix the broken system,
and to make sure that immigrants are treated with respect and mercy. We
will ask the president and the leadership of the House and Senate not
to wait any longer for bipartisan consensus to move immigration reform
onto the agenda. Introduce the bill, Mr. President, and don’t wait for
those in the other party or even everyone in your own party to join
you. Tell the country why this is both right and in the best interests
of the country -- of us all. Tell them why it is the American thing to
do. And then let us surround our Senators and Representatives with the
testimonies of those who have suffered, and with the prayers of the
people. We will create one of the most powerful prayer vigils for
compassion and justice that this nation has ever seen -- both
personally and publicly. Let us pray reform into passage.
Comment on this article on the God's Politics Blog
Tell Glenn Beck: I'm a Social Justice Christian
by Jim Wallis, March 11, 2010
Glenn
Beck says Christians should leave churches that use the word “social
justice.” He says social justice is a code word for communism and
Nazism.
But since the Catholic Church, the Black Churches, the
Mainline Protestant churches, and more and more Evangelical and
Pentecostal churches including Hispanic and Asian-American
congregations all consider social justice central to biblical faith,
Glenn Beck is telling all those Christians to leave their churches. Of
course, Christians may disagree about what social justice means in our
current political context -- and that conversation is an important one
-- but the Bible is clear: from the Mosaic law of Jubilee, to the
Hebrew prophets, to Jesus Christ, social justice is an integral part of
God’s plan for humanity.
Beck says Christians should leave their
social justice churches, so I say Christians should leave Glenn Beck. I
don’t know if Beck
|
