Obama and Cheney: Dueling Visions of America
Last week President Barack Obama and former Vice President Dick Cheney delivered back-to-back speeches on national security.
In these speeches, we witnessed a rare moment of clarity, a moral clash in the interpretation of reality, and one of the starkest contrasts in competing visions I have ever seen for the values, direction, and policies of our nation. In short, there was a choice offered to us for exactly what kind of country and people we want to be -- and what America will mean for us and for the world.
First, President Obama offered a dramatically new direction for achieving national security, after the “misguided experiment” of the Bush years. In a very powerful symbol, Obama chose the National Archives as the venue for this major address, pointing to the historic documents that are kept here -- the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, and the Bill of Rights -- noting that these documents are “the foundation of liberty and justice in this country, and a light that shines for all who seek freedom, fairness, equality, and dignity around the world,” and clearly suggesting that they have been violated in the policies of the U.S. over the past several years, policies that included the systematic violation of legal rights and even the use of torture.
Just minutes later, former Vice President Cheney rose to speak at the American Enterprise Institute to aggressively defend and forcefully argue for a confident continuation of those very policies, and to vigorously attack the “contrived indignation and phony moralizing” of those who have critiqued the policies of the Bush/Cheney years (which some suggest should be called the Cheney/Bush years). Even Cheney admitted the “great dividing line” that stands between these two visions of national security. Candy Crowley of CNN called the dueling speeches “a tale of two universes.” And they were.
The president began by saying that
... my single most important responsibility as president is to keep the American people safe.
But, he went on to say that
... I believe with every fiber of my being that in the long run we also cannot keep this country safe unless we enlist the power of our most fundamental values. ... I make this claim not simply as a matter of idealism. We uphold our most cherished values not only because doing so is right, but because it strengthens our country and it keeps us safe. Time and again, our values have been our best national security asset ...
He spoke of the “so-called enhanced interrogation techniques” that
... undermine the rule of law. They alienate us in the world. They serve as a recruitment tool for terrorists, and increase the will of our enemies to fight us, while decreasing the will of others to work with America. ... In short, they did not advance our war and counterterrorism efforts ...
And, on closing the prison at Guantanamo:
Guantanamo set back the moral authority that is America’s strongest currency in the world. ...
[I]nstead of serving as a tool to counter-terrorism, Guantanamo became a symbol that helped al Qaeda recruit terrorists to its cause. Indeed, the existence of Guantanamo likely created more terrorists around the world than it ever detained.
Vice President Cheney, on the other hand, began and ended with 9-11 as the justification for everything that followed: “9-11 made necessary a shift of policy, aimed at a clear strategic threat ...” He defended the “enhanced interrogation” by arguing that:
The interrogations were used on hardened terrorists after other efforts failed. They were legal, essential, and the right thing to do. ... to completely rule out enhanced interrogation methods in the future is unwise in the extreme. It is recklessness cloaked in righteousness, and would make the American people less safe.
And Cheney’s view of values was that
... no moral value held dear by the American people obliges public servants ever to sacrifice innocent lives to spare a captured terrorist from unpleasant things. And when an entire population is targeted by a terror network, nothing is more consistent with American values than to stop them. ... For all that we’ve lost in this conflict, the United States has never lost its moral bearings.
My father was a Midwestern evangelical Christian, and an Eisenhower Republican. His core values never changed, but his politics did as his party moved further and further to the right, and his children moved to embrace faith-inspired social justice. He was still alive for the election of 2004, and after a retired men’s breakfast sponsored by the Detroit church that he and my mother had started, somebody suggested that the group go hear Dick Cheney who was speaking that night in nearby Ann Arbor. That was a mistake. My dad coldly replied, “I wouldn’t go hear Dick Cheney if he was the last speaker on the planet. Dick Cheney is evil.” My father was known by everyone for his kindness and generosity, and nobody would have called him judgmental. But his judgments of people, in particular, were unusually good.
I will leave the judgment of Dick Cheney’s soul to God, who alone is in the position to render that judgment on all of us. But I will say the vision of America that Cheney offers is decidedly evil, and has helped to spread even more evil around the world. Cheney represents the dark side of America, a view of the world dominated by fear and self-righteousness—always a deadly combination. It accepts no real reflection or self-examination; the evil in the world is always external, and the threat ever present. There is only certainty, and never humility. And, when the dark side goes unchecked, what it leads to is a state of permanent warfare, which will only be won by using any means necessary, and where the ends always justify the means. At the end of his breathtaking speech, the former vice president was so full of admiration and praise for those who used “enhanced interrogation” against America’s suspected enemies that you got the impression he would happily preside over those brutal sessions himself.
But at their best, American values are different than that, and, as the new president said, we did things during the last several years with a “framework that failed to rely on our legal traditions and time-tested institutions, and that failed to use our values as a compass,” and that “too often our government made decisions based on fear rather than foresight; that all too often our government trimmed facts and evidence to fit ideological predispositions.”
A fundamental change is now being made in American policies, at which the rest of the world -- and many Americans who had despaired over the course of their country -- will breathe a deep sigh of great relief. We are seeing the beginning of the hope that healing will come to some of the damage to the world and to America that has been done by the rampage over our most important values.
The good news about these dueling moral visions of America is that the first was offered by a young new president who has a personal priority to change the image of America in the world -- to the thundering applause of an audience at the National Archives. The second was offered by an aging figure of an old and imperial view of American leadership -- rather, domination -- in the world, which he wants to defend by any means necessary, to an increasingly marginal right-wing tank with only tepid applause.
The first is now the governing vision of American foreign policy, while the second is now a politically defeated ideology. Thanks be to God!
I urge you to watch both speeches: President Barack Obama and former Vice President Dick Cheney.
Rush Limbaugh to Speak at Sojourners' Mobilization to End Poverty
In an inspiring display of bipartisan bridge-building, talk radio personality Rush Limbaugh has accepted Jim Wallis' invitation to deliver a keynote address at Sojourners' Mobilization to End Poverty conference in April.
"I've always said the monologue of the extreme right is over, and a new dialogue has begun," said Wallis. "Well, that dialogue is about to get a whole lot louder."
Limbaugh, longtime champion of conservative media, announced his acceptance of the invitation on his daily radio show. Interrupted occasionally by call-ins of incredulous listeners, Limbaugh detailed months of off-the-record conversations with Wallis during which the two forged a deep friendship despite political, theological, philosophical, ideological, ecological, anthropological, eschatological, and soteriological differences. That dialogue came to a head one night when an anguished and sleepless Limbaugh called Wallis after 3:00 a.m., seeking spiritual solace.
"I responded like any good evangelical would," said Wallis. "I told him he should read his Bible. And then I hung up and went back to sleep."
Vexed but desperate, Limbaugh grabbed his trusty KJV, fanned it open at random, closed his eyes, and thrust his index finger upon whatever page it might find, landing upon this passage from James 5:
Go to now, ye rich men, weep and howl for your miseries that shall come upon you. Your riches are corrupted, and your garments are motheaten. Your gold and silver is cankered; and the rust of them shall be a witness against you, and shall eat your flesh as it were fire. Ye have heaped treasure together for the last days. Behold, the hire of the labourers who have reaped down your fields, which is of you kept back by fraud, crieth: and the cries of them which have reaped are entered into the ears of the Lord of sabaoth. Ye have lived in pleasure on the earth, and been wanton; ye have nourished your hearts, as in a day of slaughter.
"I admit, of all the verses for him to read, this passage sounds a bit harsh—especially in the King James," said Wallis. "But with 2,000 verses on poverty in the Bible, Rush was bound to hit one of them."
Limbaugh's response to the Word was swift and dramatic: "Here and now I give half of my possessions to the poor, and if I have cheated anybody out of anything, I will pay back four times the amount."
As part of Limbaugh's dramatic change of heart, he has reciprocated Wallis' speaking invitation by naming him the new co-host for his daily radio show, giving it a more faith-based focus.
"The way Kathy Lee needed Regis, that's the way y'all need Jesus," said Limbaugh. "That's what Jim will bring to the show on a daily basis—that good ole’ Red Letter Christian gospel!"
Limbaugh further detailed his plans to team up with Sojourners and others to fight domestic and global poverty, issuing this challenge to all Dittoheads in a recent broadcast: "I want everyone within the sound of my voice to call upon their members of Congress to cut the number of Americans living in poverty in half in the next 10 years, and to support America's commitment to the Millennium Devleopment Goals. ... And always remember to recycle. ... Oh, and one last thing: fur is murder."
Discovering Common Ground
The media coverage and analysis of President Obama's speech at Notre Dame on Sunday largely focused on the issue of abortion. And he did speak on that issue, clearly and strongly reiterating his own approach of finding the common ground of abortion reduction between the polarized options of "pro-choice" and "pro-life," and naming practical solutions that many on both sides of the divide can support.
Maybe we won't agree on abortion, but we can still agree that this heart-wrenching decision for any woman is not made casually; it has both moral and spiritual dimensions. So let us work together to reduce the number of women seeking abortions; let's reduce unintended pregnancies. Let's make adoption more available. Let's provide care and support for women who do carry their children to term. Let's honor the conscience of those who disagree with abortion, and draft a sensible conscience clause ...
But the speech was much more than a culmination of another abortion controversy in the media. After re-reading it, I think it was likely the most significant speech Obama has made in his presidency so far in regard to many of the concerns and work of the faith community. As columnist E.J. Dionne wrote:
There were many messages sent from South Bend. Obama's opponents seek to reignite the culture wars. He doesn't. They would reduce religious faith to a narrow set of issues. He refused to join them. They often see theological arguments as leading to certainty. He opted for humility.
President Obama began by recognizing that our difficulty in finding common ground too often lies in our imperfections -- our sin -- dominating us rather than calling us to work together.
We too often seek advantage over others. We cling to outworn prejudice and fear those who are unfamiliar. Too many of us view life only through the lens of immediate self-interest and crass materialism; in which the world is necessarily a zero-sum game. The strong too often dominate the weak, and too many of those with wealth and with power find all manner of justification for their own privilege in the face of poverty and injustice. And so, for all our technology and scientific advances, we see here in this country and around the globe violence and want and strife that would seem sadly familiar to those in ancient times.
But, at the same time, he emphasized the importance of civility and how we should engage in public dialogue on issues where strong, conflicting opinions can lead us to discover that common ground.
The question, then, is how do we work through these conflicts? Is it possible for us to join hands in common effort? As citizens of a vibrant and varied democracy, how do we engage in vigorous debate? How does each of us remain firm in our principles, and fight for what we consider right, without, as Father John said, demonizing those with just as strongly held convictions on the other side? When we open up our hearts and our minds to those who may not think precisely like we do or believe precisely what we believe -- that's when we discover at least the possibility of common ground. Each side will continue to make its case to the public with passion and conviction. But surely we can do so without reducing those with differing views to caricature.
And the new president reminded us all that the strength of faith should produce genuine humility, rather than easy certainty, in our views, and can help lead us to a commitment to social justice.
Remember, too, that the ultimate irony of faith is that it necessarily admits doubt. It's the belief in things not seen. It's beyond our capacity as human beings to know with certainty what God has planned for us or what [God] asks of us. And those of us who believe must trust that [God's] wisdom is greater than our own.
And this doubt should not push us away from our faith. But it should humble us. It should temper our passions, cause us to be wary of too much self-righteousness. It should compel us to remain open and curious and eager to continue the spiritual and moral debate that began for so many of you within the walls of Notre Dame. And within our vast democracy, this doubt should remind us even as we cling to our faith to persuade through reason, through an appeal whenever we can to universal rather than parochial principles, and most of all through an abiding example of good works and charity and kindness and service that moves hearts and minds.
As I wrote on Monday, this president's willingness to confront controversy with an appeal to common values could help to change the way we address a number of divisive and controversial issues. We live in a country where we certainly know everyone will not agree on everything. In fact, it is quite an accomplishment to even get half of the country to agree on anything. Our differences, and our ability to maintain this union in spite of them, are some of our country's greatest strengths.
President Obama laid out a strong and positive vision for how people of faith, and the nation as a whole, can work together to face the most difficult moral questions of our time in both disagreement and unity. If you have not yet read the speech, I urge that you do.
Sojourners has a long history of promoting this common-ground approach and does so again in the cover feature of our June 2009 issue, "Bridge Over Troubled Waters," by Julie Polter.
The First 100 Days
Wednesday marked the 100th day of President Obama's administration and the final day of Sojourners' Mobilization to End Poverty, the nation's largest gathering of Christian leaders and activists committed to overcoming poverty in our country and world. This Mobilization brought together more than 1,100 Christians from across the religious spectrum who visited 83 Senate and 200 House offices to advocate for including low-income families and vulnerable people in the economic recovery. Participants on the first full day of the Mobilization were excited and energized by a video message from the president, who took the opportunity to recommit to overcoming poverty in our country and partnering with the faith community.
In the first 100 days, President Obama has made unprecedented strides and set promising priorities in two key areas -- expanding economic opportunity at home and forging a new role for the U.S. in the world.
In regard to poverty, the president and his administration have shown a clear commitment to ensure that poor and low-income people are not left out of the economic recovery plan and the budget. There has not been a president or a budget I have seen in my lifetime that has so carefully considered the people Jesus called "the least of these." These early steps show that poverty reduction will be a commitment of the Obama administration, both in word and deed. This can be accomplished through commitments in his budget and stimulus plan to repair a neglected safety net for those who find themselves without jobs, key investments in infrastructure that will create new jobs and opportunities, especially green jobs, finally achieving health care reform, and a long-term plan for ensuring that our schools and institutions of higher education are the best in the world. His budget's commitment to foreign aid will make sure that the progress we have seen on reducing extreme poverty across the world will continue in a time when we could easily backslide.
Regarding our role in the global community, from the moment he was inaugurated President Obama changed the image of the U.S. in the eyes of the world. He has made substantive policy changes and set priorities that are forging a new global role for our country. First, he has reached out to the Muslim world and begun to build the bridges and understanding that will be necessary for peace, security, and prosperity in our world. Second, he has clearly and unequivocally stated his commitment to ensuring that torture is not acceptable and will no longer be a tool of U.S. foreign policy. Third, his global commitment to a world free of nuclear weapons is a compelling vision for which we have already waited too long, and an early commitment to that goal offers the opportunity for serious progress over the course of his administration. Fourth, early steps in foreign policy have shown a preference for development and diplomacy over mere military action, and we urge that emphasis continue in Afghanistan rather than increasing combat troops. By dropping the deceptive and misleading "war on terror," we have new opportunities for progress and peace.
On values, vision, principles, and direction, President Obama's first 100 days have offered some real encouragement to many of us in the faith community. But the most important results are yet to come. For that, it will take a vital, new partnership that includes both the support of the faith community when the Obama agenda is consistent with our own, and challenge when our prophetic integrity requires it -- a role that this new president has already affirmed.
A Spiritual Struggle
Sunday evening the Mobilization to End Poverty will begin. More than 1,000 faith leaders and activists from around the country will gather to worship, fellowship, and advocate for the biblical imperative of reducing domestic and global poverty.
If you are not planning to join us, there are two things I’d like to ask you to do.
Watch with us. The federal budget has passed both the House and Senate. After a conference committee reconciles the differences between them, the final budget language will be approved. And then the real work begins.
The crucial appropriations process will continue for months, with most decisions on important programs to support low-income people yet to be decided.
Key provisions for nutrition, child care and early education, the child tax credit, affordable housing, job training, educational opportunity, health care, and vital foreign aid to combat hunger and disease will all be major struggles.
At the Mobilization, we will be equipping people to make initial contacts with their members of Congress to express our concern that those in poverty not be forgotten. And then we will return home to watch as they deliberate, and to continue advocating for new priorities. Throughout the spring and summer, we will be providing up-to-date information on the process and the critical issues as we encourage you to watch, pray, and act.
Pray with us. As people of faith, we know that “Unless the Lord builds the house, those who build it labor in vain” (Psalm 127:1). Pray that the Mobilization will be an informative and inspiring experience for those who attend. Pray that God will use us to be effective witnesses to the reality of poverty in the U.S. and around the world. Pray that the members of Congress and their staffs that we visit will have open minds and hearts.
Our politics and this budget will revert naturally to old habits and bad priorities -- with the poor bearing the brunt, once again, of deficit reduction -- unless there are powerful, even spiritual, forces pushing better and newer priorities.
Now, more than ever, we need to watch and pray.
A Christian Mistake
In ominous red and black, last week’s Newsweek cover carried the headline, “The Decline and Fall of Christian America.” The magazine’s cover story by editor Jon Meacham provoked a wide array of reactions from across the spectrum. Whether Meacham is ultimately correct in his observance of these trends and his interpretation of their meaning is yet to be seen. The 1966 Time magazine cover that asked “Is God Dead?” could not have foreseen the development of religion in American public life over the past 40 years, and we shouldn’t expect any more from Newsweek. What the latter cover has accomplished is to raise questions vital to both the health of the Christian tradition and for the public discourse of our nation.
The question that struck me and the one I began to address in a short piece for Newsweek was that of the role of religion in public life and politics. Here’s what I had to say:
The Religious Right was a Christian mistake. It was a movement that sought to implement a “Christian agenda” by tying the faithful to one political option -- the right wing of the Republican Party. The politicizing of faith in such a partisan way is always a theological mistake. But the rapid decline of the Religious Right now offers us a new opportunity to re-think the role of faith in American public life.
Personally, I am not offended or alarmed by the notion of a post-Christian America. Christianity was originally and, in my view, always meant to be a minority faith with a counter-cultural stance, as opposed to the dominant cultural and political force. Notions of a “Christian America” quite frankly haven’t turned out very well.
But that doesn’t mean a lack of religious influence — on the contrary. Committed minorities have had a tremendous influence on cultures and even on politics. Just look at all the faith-inspired social-reform movements animated by people of faith. But Martin Luther King Jr. did not get the Civil Rights Act passed because he had the most Bible verses on his side but because he entered into the public square with compelling arguments, vision, and policy that ultimately won the day. Those faith-inspired movements are disciplined by democracy, meaning they don’t expect to win just because they are “Christian.” They have to win the debates about what is best for the common good by convincing their fellow citizens.
And that is best done by shaping the values narrative, as opposed to converting everyone to their particular brand of religion. Rather, they are always looking for allies around their moral causes, including people of other faiths or of no religion. The story of Christianity in America in the coming decades will be defined by a multicultural shift as well as a generational one. “New” evangelicals and Catholics, along with black, Hispanic, and Asian churches will now shape the agenda. But also included are the millions of Americans who say they are “spiritual but not religious,” finding homes in non-traditional churches, mega-churches that teach that true religion is found in care for “the least of these.” Making a real impact on the values and directions that a democracy will choose is, perhaps, a more exciting kind of influence than relying on the illusory and often disappointing hopes of cultural and political dominance.
Barack Obama stirred the pot around this exact question recently with his comment at a press conference in Turkey that “we do not consider ourselves a Christian nation.” This statement is not a new one for Obama. He expressed it clearly during a 2006 speech to a Sojourners/Call to Renewal conference. He explained his position this way:
Democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values. It requires that their proposals be subject to argument, and amenable to reason. I may be opposed to abortion for religious reasons, but if I seek to pass a law banning the practice, I cannot simply point to the teachings of my church or evoke God’s will. I have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all.
Now this is going to be difficult for some who believe in the inerrancy of the Bible, as many evangelicals do. But in a pluralistic democracy, we have no choice. Politics depends on our ability to persuade each other of common aims based on a common reality. It involves the compromise, the art of what’s possible. At some fundamental level, religion does not allow for compromise. It’s the art of the impossible. If God has spoken, then followers are expected to live up to God’s edicts, regardless of the consequences. To base one’s life on such uncompromising commitments may be sublime, but to base our policy making on such commitments would be a dangerous thing.
The shift that Jon Meacham describes may be the best news in a long time.
Counting the Cost
While watching President Obama’s press conference Tuesday evening, I was struck by a few things that are often forgotten in the criticism of his proposed budget.
Count the Cost
It is commonly accepted by biblical scholars that upon being warned about a plot by Herod Antipas to kill him, Jesus called Herod “that fox” (Luke 13:32). Biblical scholars such as John Ortberg also believe that Jesus was referring to Herod in Luke 14:28-32, with references to an embarrassing military overreach in which Herod failed to count the cost before going to war.
Suppose one of you wants to build a tower. Will he not first sit down and estimate the cost to see if he has enough money to complete it? For if he lays the foundation and is not able to finish it, everyone who sees it will ridicule him, saying, “This fellow began to build and was not able to finish.” Or what king, going out to wage war against another king, will not sit down first and consider whether he is able with ten thousand to oppose the one who comes against him with twenty thousand? If he cannot, then, while the other is still far away, he sends a delegation and asks for the terms of peace.
Jesus didn’t hesitate to publicly call out a king who failed to count the cost of a war, even when that king was out to kill him. Throughout the Bush presidency, we saw exactly this failure to count the cost of war. When President Clinton left office, our nation was benefiting from a $127 billion budget surplus. With the books now closed on the Bush years, the Obama administration has inherited a $1.3 trillion deficit. This deficit was accrued by a reckless pursuit of conservative ideology with tax cuts for the rich, while hiding the true cost of a war by deliberately leaving war spending out of the budget, and financing the venture through emergency supplemental bills. Government spending skyrocketed, while responsibility for paying off the debt passed on to our children.
And paying for war does not end when the conflict is over. Whether or not we agreed with the war doesn’t relieve us of our moral obligation to take care of those who fought it. Service providers have been reporting a new generation of homeless veterans living on our streets for several years now, and their physical and mental injuries will leave some vets unable to assume full employment for the rest of their lives.
Good Debt and Bad Debt
This is a difference that we all have had to work through. It is the difference between going into debt for something that will bear greater returns in the long run, or going into debt for things that will only depreciate in value. Another way of saying it is knowing the difference between wants and needs. We encourage our children to go to college even though they will have to take on some debt to do so, because the benefits of a college education far outweigh the amount of debt accrued. (Although college costs have now increased so significantly that some students are now finding out that even college debt can be bad debt.) We don’t encourage our children to put $1,000 on a credit card, with an interest rate of 30%, to buy an entertainment system they don’t need. Why? Because the entertainment system brings a moment of pleasure but does not add any long-term value to the child’s life.
When we look at the president’s budget, we have to ask ourselves whether the deficits it will incur are good debt or bad debt. Are the things being paid for a want or a need? While Bobby Jindal publicly mocked spending on volcano monitoring, this week’s eruption in Alaska and past eruptions such as Mount St. Helens have shown that a small investment now can save far greater sums of money in the long run -- and even save lives.
The president has outlined three areas of spending in his new budget that will help by immediately stimulating demand within our economy and by adding long-term value to the country. The first is education, with the president deciding that it is worth going into debt to increase the quality of and opportunities for education in our country. The second, spending on health care, also adds long-term value to our society. Every year billions of dollars are spent unnecessarily when people put off treatment because they are worried they can’t afford it. Third, there are long-term benefits from spending on the environment and infrastructure. Spending on environmental improvements creates jobs that cannot be sent overseas, and will also reduce the high health-care costs associated with various environmental maladies. Debt, of course, must come back down to a sustainable level, but the way to get it there is by investing now in areas that will pay off in the next few years and for generations to come.
So yes, a lot of us are experiencing sticker shock with the new Obama budget. But this sticker shock is like the one of a student looking at their loans -- not a credit card bill racked up at Banana Republic. It is debt that requires discipline, hard work, and focus. But it is the good kind of debt, the kind of debt that can and will produce surpluses in the long run.
'Once Again' in Darfur
Here we are again, and again, and again. It is not a new message or a new concern. People have been suffering, starving, raped, beaten and killed year in and year out. There are those who have committed years, entire lives, to the cause. They have preached, they have marched, they have sung, they have divested, and they have been arrested to make their voices heard. Politicians, celebrities, faith leaders, and activists have joined together to stand up and speak out. The campaigns have gone on so long and the education so effective that 58 percent of Americans can now locate this remote country on a map. But, “never again” has turned into “once again,” and history repeats itself with genocide in Darfur.
Over the past few weeks, 13 international humanitarian organizations have been expelled from Sudan at the dictate of Omar al-Bashir, president of Sudan. These actions came soon after the International Criminal Court handed down an indictment of al-Bashir and issued a warrant for his arrest for crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes in Darfur. As a result, 1.1 million Darfuris are without food, 1.5 million without health care, and more than 1 million without access to clean drinking water. If there was any doubt as to whether or not he was truly acting in the best interest of his people, his use of food and water as weapons of war show that he just does not care about the people of Darfur.
Over the past month, officials have spoken to me about invoking Article 16 of the Court’s statutes which would allow the U.N. Security Council to defer proceedings for a year or even more. They argue that this would allow the Khartoum government to take positive steps forward in taking care of its people and moving toward peace. With the expulsion of these humanitarian organizations, al-Bashir has shown that he has no interest in the well-being of the people of Darfur or in bringing peace. These actions show that once again there comes a time when a political leader has so violated standards of international law and morality that he should no longer be treated as a sovereign, even in his own country, but as a criminal. Actions like this show that he should no longer be president, but prosecuted and brought to justice like the international fugitive of the law he now is. If he was serious about peace and progress, the first thing he should do is welcome the aid organizations back into his country, and without that he has ensured that this warrant will be pursued.
Thursday morning, a small group gathered in the Rules Committee meeting room of the Capitol building. Congressmen and women, activists, faith leaders, and celebrities spoke to express our outrage at the flagrant disregard for human life, but press was sparse at the event. AIG bonuses were the headlines of the day. Certainly, that is a revelation worthy of our anger, but in the midst of our financial concerns, we must remember the lives of the millions killed over the past 20 years and the hundreds of thousands of deaths that will come with the support of the Khartoum government.
Where do we go from here? Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said in response to the expulsion of aid groups, The real question is what kind of pressure can be brought to bear on President Bashir and the government in Khartoum to understand that they will be held responsible for every single death that occurs in these camps.
We all must ask ourselves what more we can do as we escalate our own response to this offense to our faith and our conscience. The president took a step forward by appointing a new special envoy to Sudan, General J. Scott Gration, but that is not enough. Congresswoman Donna Edwards said it this way at the press conference: “It is not just by our appointments but by our actions that we need to show that what Khartoum has done is unacceptable.”
Again, and again, and again. The unacceptable has been accepted, atrocities have been ignored. When the dust clears and the bodies are buried, burned, or left to rot in forsaken camps, the whole world will mourn for what has been done. But, what Sudan needs is not apologies in the future, but hope today. Until the killing has stopped and peace restored, Sudan needs people of conscience across the world who will stand in solidarity today, tomorrow, and the day after that – again, and again, and again.
A Fairness Issue
“Without justice, what are kingdoms but bands of robbers?” – St. Augustine
I was surprised when Senator Bob Casey (D-PA) opened up his remarks before the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pension (HELP) Committee with those words from the great fourth century Christian theologian. Senator Casey is a committed Catholic and spoke during the hearing from a deep commitment to the “common good” in support of the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA).
The bill is contentious to say the least. Earlier this week, a Politico headline ran “Union Bill Creates Jobs -- for GOP Ops.” Big business and unions have already spent and will continue to spend tens of millions of dollars in opposition to and support of the bill. The details of the bill will be debated, revised, and compromised over the course of this battle. I testified before the Senate HELP Committee this week in support of the bill, but my remarks did not focus on the technical policy aspects of the legislation, but rather on the underlying moral precepts that the bill attempts to address.
The relationship between employer and employee is broken:
In 1965, U.S. CEOs at major companies made 24 times a worker's pay -- by 2004, CEOs earned 431 times the pay of an average worker. From 1995 to 2005, average CEO pay increased five times faster than that of average workers. While CEO pay continues to increase at rates far exceeding inflation, wages for the vast majority of American workers have failed to keep up with rising prices. In fact, real wages for the 90% of Americans who earn under $92,000 a year have actually fallen since 2001.
This is a fairness issue. The system of employee-employer relations is fundamentally lopsided. There’s a need to level the playing field, to redress a great imbalance. When a system is in such fundamental imbalance, it is our obligation on both sides of the aisle to remedy that. While the details of the legislation are worked and reworked, these fundamental questions of relationships between employer and employee, management and labor, must be addressed.
Twenty years ago, in their pastoral letter “Economic Justice for All,” the U.S. Catholic Bishops wrote:
The way power is distributed in a free market economy frequently gives employers greater bargaining power than employees in the negotiation of labor contracts. ... The Church fully supports the right of workers to form unions or other associations to secure their rights to fair wages and working conditions. ... In the words of Pope John Paul II, ‘The experience of history teaches that organizations of this type are an indispensable element of social life, especially in modern industrial societies.’ ... No one may deny the right to organize without attacking human dignity itself.
My dad worked for Detroit Edison when I was growing up and was often involved with the labor negotiations at the company, not on the labor side, but on the management side. He was often preferred by both sides to be at the table of those tough contract and workplace issues negotiations. Why? Because he recognized the value of unions even if he didn’t agree with their every demand. And he believed a cooperative relationship between labor and management was better than a constantly contentious one. He knew that a good relationship between management and labor was essential to a stable and productive workforce and economy, and that union organizing and leadership helped contribute to that. Things have changed since then, but the principles of cooperation that I learned from my dad's work with unions, that management and labor can be partners and not just antagonists, needs to be restored. And the great chasm that has now grown between CEO salaries and that of average workers, I know, would have appalled and offended my father.
Our Moral Audit of the Budget
Four years ago, faced with a disastrous federal budget proposal, Sojourners coined a phase, “budgets are moral documents.” That phrase has now entered the common lexicon, but it remains our fundamental principle. Budgets reflect the values and priorities of a family, church, organization, city, state, or nation. They tell us what is most important and valued to those making the budget. So, it is important that we do a “values audit” of President Obama’s proposed budget, a “moral audit” of our priorities. Who benefits in this budget, what things are revealed as most important, and what things are less important? America’s religious communities are required to ask of any budget: what happens to the poor and most vulnerable -- especially, what becomes of the nation’s poorest children in these critical decisions?
The values of the American people should also be applied to the budget, e.g. fairness (everyone paying their fair share); opportunity for all Americans; fiscal, personal, and social responsibility; balancing important and different priorities; defining security more broadly than just military considerations, as it is related to economic and family security too; compassion and protection for the vulnerable; building community; and upholding the common good.
That’s a principle that has been forgotten in the past years. We have trusted in “the invisible hand” of the market to make everything turn out all right, but things too often haven’t turned out all right. The invisible hand let go of some things, like the common good. The idea that policies which benefit the wealthiest will eventually benefit everyone has proven false. The president’s budget is a step toward restoring the value of the common good to our policy. It is a step to rebalance our priorities, protect the vulnerable, and strengthen the middle.
It contains major investments in the president’s three priorities: significantly expanding health care coverage, focusing on climate change reduction and developing renewable energy, and investing in education -- early childhood programs, strengthening and reforming public schools, expanded opportunities for college -- all of which will benefit low-income people. There are also specific changes in important areas such as tax policy, food and nutrition programs, housing, needed aid to veterans, prisoner re-entry, global food security, and increased foreign aid for combating pandemic disease. It’s a budget aimed at redressing the imbalances.
The growing inequality in America over decades is a sin of biblical proportions, and it’s time to bring our principles of social justice to bear. As columnist E.J. Dionne wrote,
The central issue in American politics now is whether the country should reverse a three-decade-long trend of rising inequality in incomes and wealth. Politicians will say lots of things in the coming weeks, but they should be pushed relentlessly to address the bottom-line question: Do they believe that a fairer distribution of capitalism's bounty is essential to repairing a sick economy? Everything else is a subsidiary issue.
It is that question that should guide our moral audit of the budget. The fundamental moral question in the upcoming budget debate is whether to begin to reverse the rapid and massive increase in American inequality which has grown over the past thirty years -- and has dramatically increased during the past eight. I believe it is time to stop helping the undeserving rich, under the now demonstrably false assertion that this will then benefit the rest of us. When the top 1 percent of the country now get 20 percent of its income, control 33 percent of its wealth, and pay a smaller percentage of their income in taxes than their receptionists do (as Warren Buffet has pointed out)—something has gone terribly wrong in America. The new Obama budget is the first and dramatic step to fix all that, and turn the nation in a different direction.
The new budget proposed by the White House is a dramatic step in the direction of the common good, with strong support for the middle of America, real help for the poorest among us, and the proposition that the wealthiest pay their fare share. And my prediction is that many in the faith community, especially those on the front lines of serving the poor, will rally around the principles and priorities of this budget, bringing their energy and advocacy to bear on the debate that now lies ahead. Because this will not just be a policy debate, but also a moral one; the prayers of the faithful -- along with their watchful eyes, willing hands, and ready feet -- will surround the congressional budget process over the next few months.
Obama's Call to Rebuild
This wasn’t really a budget speech, or even a State of the Union. It was a call to rebuild a country -- from its infrastructure, to its economy, to its values. Last night, Barack Obama called a new generation to a new American future. And from the “twittering” and Facebook status updates I am aware of going on last night, the new generation stayed up late to watch and got the speech they wanted—a vision for the new America they hope to raise their children in.
There hasn’t been as much political vision or ambition in the chamber of the House of Representatives for decades as there was last night. It wasn’t just a list of little ideas or a recitation of familiar symbols; it was a substantial diagnosis of America’s crisis and the bold promise to find the solutions necessary. If the inaugural speech disappointed some for being more sobering than visionary, the call to action they were waiting for came last night.
The new president boldly declared that it is time to meet the big challenges. After telling Americans for the last month what we were up against, he said that America can and will rise to meet the challenge.
... while our economy may be weakened and our confidence shaken; though we are living through difficult and uncertain times, tonight I want every American to know this: We will rebuild, we will recover, and the United States of America will emerge stronger than before.
After succeeding in passing the most aggressive economic recovery plan in memory, despite a united opposition, Obama sounded absolutely optimistic about the budget he will present this week.
In the next few days, I will submit a budget to Congress. So often, we have come to view these documents as simply numbers on a page or laundry lists of programs. I see this document differently. I see it as a vision for America - as a blueprint for our future.
He said both his stimulus plan and his budget will focus on beginning to fix the biggest issues—energy dependence, broken health care, and failed education. He said our crisis has come from ignoring, neglecting, and postponing solutions to core problems like these while, at the same time, spending money we didn’t have to buy things we didn’t need.
But the “day of reckoning has arrived,” said the new president, and “now is the time” to solve our biggest problems—and while the problems are great, we will solve them.
Some of the most important ideas, lines, and promises were:
Stressing that the economic recovery is “not about saving banks, but helping people.”
Reminding us that “responsibility for our children’s education begins at home.”
Promising to support both soldiers and veterans, but to also get rid of outdated Cold War weapons systems.
Pledging to cut unnecessary subsidies to agribusiness and eliminate no-bid contracts like in Iraq -- big tasks that politics has been unwilling to take on.
Committing that we will no longer hide the price of war in the budget.
Stating emphatically that “the United States of America does not torture,” especially saying it the night after Jack Bauer and 24.
Recognizing that the biggest deficit we face is the “deficit of trust” that Americans feel for their leaders and their lack of solutions.
Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal, a rising star for the Republicans, could not muster a compelling vision counter to what the president proposed. He admitted that his party had failed the country but then used the story of incompetent political appointees and the bureaucratic mess they created in response to Katrina to try to make a point that government never works. But that didn't work.
In contrast to the simple Democratic reliance on the government or the Republican mantra of the invisible hand of the market to solve our problems, Obama called for a new commitment to the common good, collective action, and a new combination of both personal and social responsibility.
He said, in closing:
Those of us gathered here tonight have been called to govern in extraordinary times. It is a tremendous burden, but also a great privilege - one that has been entrusted to few generations of Americans. For in our hands lies the ability to shape our world for good or for ill. I know that it is easy to lose sight of this truth - to become cynical and doubtful; consumed with the petty and the trivial.
But in my life, I have also learned that hope is found in unlikely places; that inspiration often comes not from those with the most power or celebrity, but from the dreams and aspirations of Americans who are anything but ordinary.
Some people don’t like strong leadership. I do. And this is the kind of leadership that calls and inspires people to act themselves and be part of the solutions we need. I like that too. And it’s a new kind of leadership that invites being held accountable to results. That’s fair.
Obama has a vision and last night offered a road map. And he invited citizens across the political spectrum to bring their own ideas but to join the journey and stop standing by the side of the road with their arms folded in critique. Disagreement comes with a responsibility to offer better ideas, says this president.
The words of Ty’Sheoma, a school girl from South Carolina, sitting in the gallery next to Michelle Obama, were lifted up by President Obama last night. She wrote the Congress to ask for help for her school but wanted them to know, “We are not quitters."
The Bipartisan Poverty Forum
Through the partisan fistfight of the general election, in the midst of political posturing during the transition, and moving forward in spite of a Congress split down party lines, a bipartisan group of leaders has found common ground in one thing -- God’s concern for the poor. Four months ago, and well before any of us knew who would be president, people of faith from across the political spectrum began meeting to discuss practical policy initiatives that would reflect our common belief that God has called us to care for the least of these. In what is now known as The Poverty Forum, Mike Gerson, President Bush’s speech writer for six years, and I co-chaired a group of leaders and policy experts who were convened by Sojourners and The Clapham Group. You can read more about the forum and a list of participants.
In a press conference yesterday, The Poverty Forum publically announced a list of policy proposals aimed at reducing poverty in our country. Each proposal was developed by a pair of leaders coming from different political perspectives on a wide range of issues from health care to prison reform. You can read the full list of proposals here and also listen to the entire press conference.
I recently heard a reporter comment that it just might be time to start looking at the mid-term elections for clues as to what Congress might do. I couldn’t help but conclude at how broken the logic of this city can be. Our litmus test for each policy proposal was to turn the logic of Washington D.C. on its head and ask first, “What would each policy do for the poor?”
The Poverty Forum has gathered leaders together who agreed on the end goal, care for the poor, just not always how to get there. As Mike Gerson said in the press conference today, we built relationships and trust with one another not only for dialogue but for innovation. Chuck Donovan had this to say about the group in the Wall Street Journal:
"This is an opportunity to get attention for some ideas that might not be taken as seriously if they came directly from the Family Research Council" or other advocacy groups easily pigeonholed as conservative or liberal, Mr. Donovan said.
It is my hope that this group serves as an example for what bipartisanship can achieve when the end goal is agreed upon, and I hope Congress was watching. As Steve Waldman wrote this week:
If you can strip away the political barnacles to reveal the pure idea beneath, you've served a real public purpose. That is good bipartisanship.
With an estimated 9 million more people about to fall into poverty, we need now more than ever to show that poverty is a bipartisan issue and a non-partisan cause.
The Best Thing for the Economy, the Right Thing for the Poor
The economy and the nation are at a crossroads. Unemployment, poverty, and hardship are on the rise. For many years, official Washington has said, “It is not the time to deal with poverty,” whether in good or bad economic times. The stars have now aligned in the midst of this economic crisis, and it is precisely the time to address the urgent issues of poverty in America.
First, economists across the political spectrum agree that the economy desperately needs to be stimulated by federal investment in things that will generate immediate economic activity and jobs. Second, the same analysts also agree that benefits to low-income families will result in immediate economic stimulation as people in distress will spend the money they receive because they have no other choice. In other words, directly helping vulnerable people works because it will quickly help stimulate the economy, and it’s right because it will immediately help poor and vulnerable people. How often do we get to do what works and what’s right at the same time?
At the heart of our religious traditions is the command to help the vulnerable and to have a bias for the poorest among us. The compromise the economic stimulus package agreed to in Congress yesterday takes some important steps in directly assisting poor and low-income people and stimulating the economy at the same time. Helping those who have fallen on hard times -- and helping states avert cuts in a range of critical services -- will do more to help the economy and create jobs than poorly targeted tax cuts.
The package includes some significant funding increases for food stamps, increasing and extending unemployment benefits, health insurance for unemployed workers, Medicaid, Head Start, the Child Care Development Block Grant, and fiscal relief for states to assist them in meeting their budget deficits without cutting needed social services. It expands the Earned Income Tax Credit, including marriage penalty relief, and considerably expands the Child Tax Credit. While not all of these were funded at the levels we might have hoped for, taken together they do represent significant assistance to those in need.
The economic forecasts are bleak and if unemployment reaches 9 percent, as many predict, the increases in poverty could be stunning. These provisions in the stimulus package all push against the rising tide of poverty and hardship. Economists have also concluded that they are among the most effective mechanisms for shoring up the flagging economy.
The final stimulus package takes an important step toward doing the best thing for the economy and the right thing for the poor.
Obama's New Faith-Based Council
The launch of the President's Council on Faith-based and Neighborhood Partnerships, on which I will serve, recommits our nation to the necessary and positive vision of partnership between the public sector and the faith community. It is significant that both the elimination of poverty and the reduction of abortion are central goals within the administration and this new initiative. This indicates a shift toward a deeper and more constructive engagement with the faith community and civil society around substantive policy issues.
The President’s Council on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships offers the chance to move beyond necessary programs to fund exemplary faith-based organizations, which I support, to a broader and deeper vision of real “partnership” between the faith community and sound social policies. The “faith-based initiative” from the Obama administration seems to be inviting a partnership with, rather than a substitute, for good public policies to address poverty and social justice issues in America and around the world. To truly be successful, this initiative must utilize the unique resources and identity of the faith community while recognizing the indispensible role that government and public policy must play in tackling the root causes of poverty and the high abortion rates.
I am also pleased at the selection of Joshua DuBois to be the executive director of the White House Office for Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships. DuBois represents a new generation of faith leaders who believe their faith can and should change the world. He is a bright and committed young leader who has shown a great ability to reach out very broadly to the faith community, to build good relationships, to include many people in the process, and whose background and interests prepare him to focus on both good programs and good policy. With the support of a very diverse group of significant leaders from the faith community and the non-profit world on the president’s council of advisors, DuBois can build a good team to produce real results.
The Council is composed of independent faith leaders who will remain outside of the administration, doing the work that they each do, while advising the president and the White House Office for Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships on matters of deep mutual concern. President Obama is himself a person of strong faith, and has shown a real desire to partner with the faith community throughout his career, from being a community organizer to becoming the president of the United States. He understands that the faith community will offer him our prayers and our support for agendas that are consistent with our own mission, as well as our challenge when we feel it is necessary to fulfill our “prophetic” responsibilities as leaders in the faith community. As a political leader, he has always welcomed diverse and strong opinions, and could become the kind of president who would understand how challenge is often the deepest form of support.
I know that many of us who have been appointed to the President’s Council on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships see this as an exciting opportunity to represent the faith community, to serve our nation, and advance the common good.
Davos: How Will This Crisis Change Us?
In a plenary session titled “The Values behind Market Capitalism” yesterday at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, I started with this observation:
Every morning when I wake up in Davos, I turn on my television to CNN in my hotel room. And every morning, there is the same reporter interviewing a bundled-up CEO with the snowy “magic mountain” of Davos in the background. The question is always the same: “When will this crisis be over?” They actually have a “white board” where they make the CEO mark his answer: 2009, 2010, 2011, later.
But it’s the wrong question. Of course it’s a question we all want to know the answer to, but there is a much more important one. We should be asking, “How will this crisis change us?” How will it change the way we think, act, and decide things, how we live, and how we do business? Yes, this is a structural crisis, and one that clearly calls for new social regulation. But it is also a spiritual crisis, and one that calls for new self-regulation. We seem to have lost some things and forgotten some things -- such as our values.
We have trusted in “the invisible hand” to make everything turn out all right, believing that it wasn’t necessary for us to bring virtue to bear on our decisions. But things haven’t turned out all right and the invisible hand has let go of some things, such as “the common good.” The common good hasn’t been very common in our economic decision-making for some time now. And things have spun out of control. Gandhi’s seven deadly social sins seem an accurate diagnosis for some of the causes of this crisis: “politics without principle, wealth without work, commerce without morality, pleasure without conscience, education without character, science without humanity, and worship without sacrifice.”
If we learn nothing from this crisis, all the pain and suffering it is causing will be in vain. But we can learn new habits of the heart, perhaps that suffering can even turn out to be redemptive. If we can regain a moral compass and find new metrics by which to evaluate our success, this crisis could become our opportunity to change.
Wednesday I attended an extraordinary session here called “Helping Others in a Post-Crisis World.” It was full of the insights of social entrepreneurs and innovative philanthropists, all discussing new patterns of social enterprise -- where capitalism is again in the service of big ideas and big solutions, not just making money. But the session was held in a small room, not a big hall. And it wasn’t full. New ideas of business with a social purpose have surfaced here at Davos before, but, as in the global economy, social conscience is a sidebar to business. Social purposes have become “extracurricular” to business. It’s time for the sidebar to become mainstream and move to the main hall of discussion and to the center of the way we do business.
If we wait until the economic crisis is over to get back to business as usual, we will have missed the chance we now have for re-evaluation and re-direction. Some of the smartest people in the world are assembled here on the mountain. But are we smart enough not to miss the opportunity this crisis provides to change our ways and return to some of our oldest and best values? Almost half the world’s population, 3 billion people, live on less than $2 a day -- virtually outside of the global economy. Maybe it's time to bring them in.
Inauguration Journal: Scattered Thoughts Over Four Days of History
It’s a better country than I thought it was. I honestly wouldn’t have thought this possible. I guess I would have agreed with the older generation of African Americans in my neighborhood: This day would never come in our lifetimes—but here it is.
For four decades, I’ve been fighting against all the bad stuff in America—the poverty, the racism, the human rights violations, and always the wars. At a deeper level, the arrogance, self-righteousness, materialism, and ignorance of the rest of the world, the habitual ignoring of the ones that God says we can’t, the ones Jesus calls the least of these.
From the time I got kicked out of my little white evangelical church as a young teenager, and plunged into the student movements of my generation, the issue that drove me was racism. Now the son of an African immigrant and a Kansas white woman has become president. I keep pinching myself.
And he talks differently—about almost everything.
I’ve known him for a decade, but I watched him grow as a leader all through this campaign, and now each day. I have never met a more self-disciplined political leader, with one exception—Nelson Mandela. And Mandela had the advantage of 27 years of spiritual formation in a South African prison.
I am used to White Houses who want to arrest me—22 times over 40 years. This White House wants our advice. Leaders from the faith community have been virtually inhabiting the offices of the Transition Team over the last weeks, with our advice being sought on global and domestic poverty, human rights, criminal justice, torture, faith-based offices, foreign policy, Gaza and the Middle East. A staffer joked one day, “We should have just gotten all of you bunks here.”
I took my two boys to the Opening Ceremony at the Lincoln Memorial, which I thought was just going to be “a concert.” But it turned out to be a wonderfully musical civic lesson about the best of America, the history that has been a shining light to the world at our best, and one that has attracted the most diverse population on the earth. I watched my boys watch and listen, and even felt proud of my country for the first time in a very long time. Bono and Springsteen weren’t bad either, and Tom Hanks’ reading of Lincoln might have been the high point for me. Everybody was very happy and even hopeful.
Then on this year’s celebration of the birthday of Martin Luther King Jr., one day before the inauguration of the nation’s first black president, one could almost feel the warmth of Martin’s smile. The freedom fighters of the civil rights movement who are still with us, like Congressman John Lewis, said that while the election of Barack Obama wasn’t the fulfillment of King’s dream, it was, nonetheless, a hefty down payment.
Joy and I were blessed to attend the private prayer service for the new president that began inauguration day for Barack and Michelle Obama. Then there was the swearing in, which was almost unbelievable as the world watched. And then the speech. The more I listen to it, the better it gets. Here was a leader who wanted us to face how serious our situation really is. What some have called the “fake optimism” that often attends such inaugurals wasn’t there, but rather a serous invitation to make the hard choice of hope, which has always been the strength of this nation when facing the most difficult times. And here was a leader who said this wasn’t really about him, but about us, and what we would decide to do together. He called for a “new era of responsibility.” And bridging the polarized left/right debates of the decades, it was clear that he meant both personal and social responsibility.
Read the speech a few times. But some of the highlights for me were:
That the national security strategy of Donald Rumsfeld will now be replaced by the wisdom of the prophet Micah—that our security depends upon other people’s security.
That the secret governance and detention centers of Dick Cheney will now be replaced by the rule of law and the renunciation of torture as not American after all.
That the money changers of the temples of Wall Street will be replaced with the call of the prophet Nehemiah to rebuild the broken walls and establish the common good.
And American “manifest destiny” will be replaced by a new relationship to the world, more characterized by “humility” (he actually said the word) and leading by American example more than by American domination.
In concert with and in challenge to the new president, Joseph Lowery prayed:
Help us then, now , Lord, to work for that day when nation shall not lift up sword against nation, when tanks will be beaten into tractors, when every man and every woman shall sit under his or her own vine and fig tree, and no one shall be afraid; when justice will roll down like waters and righteousness as a mighty stream.
The opportunity that has always been the American promise must now be extended to all, including those at the bottom of the economy, said the new president, who also pledged that the poor of the world would not be abandoned anymore.
To the people of poor nations, we pledge to work alongside you to make your farms flourish and let clean waters flow; to nourish starved bodies and feed hungry minds.
He also gave a stern warning to the country about the results of misplaced policies and priorities.
This crisis has reminded us that without a watchful eye, the market can spin out of control. The nation cannot prosper long when it favors only the prosperous.
Obama sometimes did sound like the prophet Nehemiah, who after he carefully surveyed the broken walls of the temple, called the people together to start the rebuilding and to “commit themselves to the common good.”
Starting today, we must pick ourselves up, dust ourselves off, and begin again the work of remaking America.
Afterwards, as we were leaving the Capitol, my son Luke whispered in my ear, “Yes, we did.”
Simply put, these last few days were a moment of answered prayers for me—the prayers of decades.
Participating in the Presidential Prayer Service at the National Cathedral was a fitting end to the week’s inaugural events. Christians, Jews, Muslims, and Hindus stood to pray for the president as the first family sat just a few feet away.
It was acknowledged that it was time now for the new president to go to work. And so should the religious community. Our job now is to offer prayers and support for the new president, as we did in the Cathedral yesterday. But it will also be our job, our prophetic religious responsibility in fact, to offer challenge when necessary, as it certainly will be for this president like all presidents before him. But I think this president has the capacity to understand that challenge can be the deepest form of support.
So let our work begin.
MLK and the Mountain Moving Business
This article was Jim Wallis' contribution when invited to write a guest post on the blog for USA Service, a campaign to encourage national service in observance of Martin Luther King Day. In conjunction, Sojourners has created a special site at www.sojo.net/mlk to encourage personal, community, and national commitment to change.
Faith is believing in spite of the evidence and then watching the evidence change.
On the third Monday of January, our country sets aside a day in remembrance of the life and the work of Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. To remember King is to act like him. The change that King led is not contained within museums, monuments, or mausoleums, but lives vibrantly on in the people of social movements -- people who believe that, step by step, a divided country can be united and broken spirits can be uplifted.
Sojourners is the country's leading faith-based advocacy organization that reaches, connects, and mobilizes people of faith from diverse backgrounds. We recognize that the challenges of the economy, the environment, and threats to life and peace across the world look like mountains before us. This is why we are rooted in faith, because faith is in the mountain moving business.
With the great challenges before us, we know that moving mountains takes more than just one day of service. We must remember the words of Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.:
On the one hand, we are called to play the Good Samaritan on life's roadside, but that will be only an initial act. One day we must come to see that the whole Jericho Road must be transformed so that men and women will not be constantly beaten and robbed as they make their journey on life's highway.
The call to transform our personal and family lives, build up our own communities, and change this country on the really big issues is before each of us now. This might seem overwhelming, but it doesn't have to be. Our site and USAservice.org are dedicated to providing resources and connections for people of faith and conscience across the country who are ready to believe in spite of the evidence and then watch the evidence change.
This is a day when Americans will be "Good Samaritans" in thousands of communities across the country, volunteering in service projects of all kinds. I invite you to make a commitment to hope and change -- not just for one day, but for a movement, for a lifetime.
Automakers: Apology Accepted
This week GM printed a full page ad in Automotive News magazine to make a public apology. They said:
While we’re still the U.S. sales leader, we acknowledge we have disappointed you. At times we violated your trust by letting our quality fall below industry standards and our designs become lackluster. We proliferated our brands and dealer network to the point where we lost adequate focus on our core U.S. market. We also biased our product mix toward pickup trucks and SUVs. And we made commitments to compensation plans that have proven to be unsustainable in today’s globally competitive industry. We have paid dearly for these decisions, learned from them and are working hard to correct them by restructuring our U.S. business to be viable for the long-term.
This gesture could easily be interpreted as “too little too late,” a desperate P.R. campaign, or as a “bizarre” and “pointless exercise” as some analysts have put it. While I do not know the hearts of the executives at GM, I would like to take this apology at face value and accept it.
The heart of our faith is about relationships. How they are broken and how they are fixed. Righteousness is the term we use that means “right relationships.” It may sound like an oversimplification, especially in light of all of the complex market instruments that are in use today, but the root of all of this financial mess and turmoil are broken relationships, broken social covenants.
The relationship between employer and employee. The relationship between corporations and community. The relationship between stock holders and executives. The relationship between consumers and their creditors. The relationship between the businesses, the government, and our civic institutions. The relationship between people and the planet we live on. These relationships are broken, distorted, and even abandoned. All of them are in need of redemption.
If all that come out of this crisis are some new regulations on naked short-selling, transparency in hedge funds, realistic credit ratings for mortgage backed securities, and a slap on the wrist for those who spent more than they had, then we have missed the point. All or some of these actions may be good and may be necessary, but no maze of regulations or army of watch dogs can ever change the fact that we have broken and abandoned the relationships that build up the foundations of a good society. As I have said before, this economic crisis is both structural and spiritual.
If we only treat the symptoms of the problems without also seeking personal and communal transformation, we will find ourselves on the losing side of this battle. However, if we fail to regulate our markets and hope that the “invisible hand” will turn all our vices into virtues, we fall into the painful naiveté that brought us to this place to begin with.
Part of what scares us when we see a company like GM collapsing is that we can see our own vices writ large against the sky. When we hear that these companies have been producing not the best that they could, but only what would just get by, we think of our own failings. When credit freezes up and lenders do not trust borrowers or borrowers trust their lenders, we think of all the times that we have refused trust to others and the times that we’ve broken the trust that has been extended to us. When we watch the bubble burst, we see the futility of our own greed and our inability to say that enough is enough.
If we are honest with ourselves, we realize that the very mistakes the leadership of GM, Chrysler, and Ford have made are all too recognizable in ourselves—even if there are drastic differences of scale. All I can say is, apology accepted. Maybe we all need the chance to make a fresh start and begin to slowly dig our way out of this crisis.
Being from Detroit, I hope that Congress will pass the loan package for the auto companies—with a whole range of tough conditions, clear oversight, and a goal of becoming the world’s leading innovators in green automotive technology. Because bailouts without apologies, penance, and true change are never a good idea for any of us.
My Personal 'Faith Priorities' for this Election
In 2004, several conservative Catholic bishops and a few megachurch pastors like Rick Warren issued their list of "non-negotiables," which were intended to be a voter guide for their followers. All of them were relatively the same list of issues: abortion, gay marriage, stem cell research, etc. None of them even included the word "poverty," only one example of the missing issues which are found quite clearly in the Bible. All of them were also relatively the same as official Republican Party Web sites of "non-negotiables." The political connections and commitments of the religious non-negotiable writers were quite clear.
I want to suggest a different approach this year and share my personal list of "faith priorities" that will guide me in making the imperfect choices that always confront us in any election year — and suggest that each of you come up with your own list of "faith" or "moral" priorities for this election year and take them into the voting booth with you.
After the last election, I wrote a book titled God’s Politics. I was criticized by some for presuming to speak for God, but that wasn’t the point. I was trying to explore what issues might be closest to the heart of God and how they may be quite different from what many strident religious voices were then saying. I was also saying that "God’s Politics" will often turn our partisan politics upside down, transcend our ideological categories of Left and Right, and challenge the core values and priorities of our political culture. I was also trying to say that there is certainly no easy jump from God’s politics to either the Republicans or Democrats. God is neither. In any election we face imperfect choices, but our choices should reflect the things we believe God cares about if we are people of faith, and our own moral sensibilities if we are not people of faith. Therefore, people of faith, and all of us, should be "values voters" but vote all our values, not just a few that can be easily manipulated for the benefit of one party or another.
In 2008, the kingdom of God is not on the ballot in any of the 50 states as far as I can see. So we can’t vote for that this year. But there are important choices in this year’s election — very important choices — which will dramatically impact what many in the religious community and outside of it call "the common good," and the outcome could be very important, perhaps even more so than in many recent electoral contests.
I am in no position to tell anyone what is "non-negotiable," and neither is any bishop or megachurch pastor, but let me tell you the "faith priorities" and values I will be voting on this year:
With more than 2,000 verses in the Bible about how we treat the poor and oppressed, I will examine the record, plans, policies, and promises made by the candidates on what they will do to overcome the scandal of extreme global poverty and the shame of such unnecessary domestic poverty in the richest nation in the world. Such a central theme of the Bible simply cannot be ignored at election time, as too many Christians have done for years. And any solution to the economic crisis that simply bails out the rich, and even the middle class, but ignores those at the bottom should simply be unacceptable to people of faith.
From the biblical prophets to Jesus, there is, at least, a biblical presumption against war and the hope of beating our swords into instruments of peace. So I will choose the candidates who will be least likely to lead us into more disastrous wars and find better ways to resolve the inevitable conflicts in the world and make us all safer. I will choose the candidates who seem to best understand that our security depends upon other people’s security (everyone having "their own vine and fig tree, so no one can make them afraid," as the prophets say) more than upon how high we can build walls or a stockpile of weapons. Christians should never expect a pacifist president, but we can insist on one who views military force only as a very last resort, when all other diplomatic and economic measures have failed, and never as a preferred or habitual response to conflict.
"Choosing life" is a constant biblical theme, so I will choose candidates who have the most consistent ethic of life, addressing all the threats to human life and dignity that we face — not just one. Thirty-thousand children dying globally each day of preventable hunger and disease is a life issue. The genocide in Darfur is a life issue. Health care is a life issue. War is a life issue. The death penalty is a life issue. And on abortion, I will choose candidates who have the best chance to pursue the practical and proven policies which could dramatically reduce the number of abortions in America and therefore save precious unborn lives, rather than those who simply repeat the polarized legal debates and "pro-choice" and "pro-life" mantras from either side.
God’s fragile creation is clearly under assault, and I will choose the candidates who will likely be most faithful in our care of the environment. In particular, I will choose the candidates who will most clearly take on the growing threat of climate change, and who have the strongest commitment to the conversion of our economy and way of life to a cleaner, safer, and more renewable energy future. And that choice could accomplish other key moral priorities like the redemption of a dangerous foreign policy built on Middle East oil dependence, and the great prospects of job creation and economic renewal from a new "green" economy built on more spiritual values of conservation, stewardship, sustainability, respect, responsibility, co-dependence, modesty, and even humility.
Every human being is made in the image of God, so I will choose the candidates who are most likely to protect human rights and human dignity. Sexual and economic slavery is on the rise around the world, and an end to human trafficking must become a top priority. As many religious leaders have now said, torture is completely morally unacceptable, under any circumstances, and I will choose the candidates who are most committed to reversing American policy on the treatment of prisoners. And I will choose the candidates who understand that the immigration system is totally broken and needs comprehensive reform, but must be changed in ways that are compassionate, fair, just, and consistent with the biblical command to "welcome the stranger."
Healthy families are the foundation of our community life, and nothing is more important than how we are raising up the next generation. As the father of two young boys, I am deeply concerned about the values our leaders model in the midst of the cultural degeneracy assaulting our children. Which candidates will best exemplify and articulate strong family values, using the White House and other offices as bully pulpits to speak of sexual restraint and integrity, marital fidelity, strong parenting, and putting family values over economic values? And I will choose the candidates who promise to really deal with the enormous economic and cultural pressures that have made parenting such a "countercultural activity" in America today, rather than those who merely scapegoat gay people for the serious problems of heterosexual family breakdown.
That is my list of personal "faith priorities" for the election year of 2008, but they are not "non-negotiables" for anyone else. It’s time for each of us to make up our own list in these next 12 days. Make your list and send this on to your friends and family members, inviting them to do the same thing.
What's at Stake
10 issues to consider in casting a ballot.
With
perhaps the most consequential election of any of our lifetimes only a
few weeks away, it’s time to take a step back and reflect on what is at
stake. We’ve heard a lot about personalities, seen far too many
negative ads, and been spun so many times our heads are swimming. But
none of that should determine our vote.
As Christians, we know that we will not be able to vote for the
kingdom of God. It is not on the ballot. Yet there are very important
choices to make that will significantly impact the common good and the
health of this nation—and of the world. So let us all exercise our
crucial right to vote and to apply our Christian conscience to those
decisions. And in the finite and imperfect political decisions of this
and any election, let us each promise to respect the political
conscience of our brothers and sisters in Christ.
Here are 10 issues to consider in casting a ballot.
1. The economy is in grave danger. This fall, the
financial systems of the nation and the world nearly collapsed. Three
out of the nation’s top five investment banks were not able to weather
the financial storms triggered by the subprime lending crisis, and the
squalls shook the stock market as well. And now a massive government
bailout of private debt is reshaping the system. Ordinary Americans are
worried about their jobs, their homes, college and retirement funds,
and, much worse, a downward economic spiral that affects all of us.
2. “Poverty is now our next door neighbor.” That’s
what a hospital administrator said to me during my annual physical.
More and more people are feeling the effects of foreclosures, declining
housing equity and opportunity, job losses, stagnant wages, and the
lack of affordable health care. Those at the bottom, of course, are in
the worse shape of all.
3. Globally, the progress we were making on
international poverty has been seriously set back because of food and
fuel prices. Untold numbers of people are facing deepening poverty and
even starvation.
4. There continue to be 1.3 million abortions in
the U.S. each year. Partisan shouting on both sides during election
seasons has prevented us from finding solutions that result in real
abortion reduction.
5. A broken immigration system is resulting in more
and more raids on workplaces, breaking up thousands of families. How
can we create reforms that are compassionate and just, along with
securing our borders?
6. Global warming is shrinking the polar ice cap at
an unprecedented rate, endangering plant and animal species, and making
weather patterns more erratic and dangerous. Meanwhile the oil, coal,
and nuclear industries work to block alternative, non-polluting energy
sources. How can we stop and reverse climate change and move to a
sustainable energy future?
7. The war in Afghanistan has gone on for seven
years, yet by most accounts the situation on the ground is getting
worse. The war in Iraq has gone on for more than five. Some claim
progress and others say the underlying issues remain unresolved. Both
those who want “victory” and those who say we should “end” the war must
show their plans for success. And some are, dangerously, suggesting
that the U.S. should pursue war in places such as Iran and Syria. How
many more wars can we fight at one time? The military is severely
strained, especially service men and women and their families. And
those veterans who come home needing so many things are not getting
them.
8. We are no closer to a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, still a critical factor in Middle East conflicts.
9. The conduct of the U.S. war on terrorism has
taken a great toll on America’s standing in the world. The use of
torture, the abuse at Abu Ghraib, the treatment of detainees at
Guantanamo and in secret prisons around the world—all have taken their
moral toll. Concerted action will be needed to repair the nation’s
moral stature.
10. The great danger of nuclear proliferation
continues unabated. Even the pleas of wise national security people,
from both sides of the aisle, have not been heeded.
Given these and many other crises, it becomes more and more clear
that voting on personalities this election would be irresponsible. We
must focus on the issues, the records of the candidates, and their
plans for solving the massive problems that we face.
Five Rules of Christian Civility
Since the charges and counter-charges of ads will likely continue
right up to Election Day, we need some rules of civility for this
election. Let me suggest “Five Rules of Christian Civility.”
1. We Christians should be in the pocket of no
political party, and we should evaluate both candidates and both
parties by our biblically based moral compass.
2. We see the biblical foundations that undergird our concerns around many issues, and therefore we vote all our values.
3. We advocate for a consistent ethic of life from
womb to tomb, one that challenges the selective moralities of both the
Left and the Right.
4. We will respect the integrity of our Christian
brothers and sisters in their sincere efforts to apply Christian
commitments to the important decisions of this election, knowing that
people of faith and conscience will be voting both ways in this
election year.
5. We will not attack, as Democratic or Republican
partisans, our fellow Christians, but rather will expect and respect
the practice of putting our faith first in this election year, even as
we reach different conclusions.
Let us remember that change must go deeper than politics—it will
never begin in Washington nor simply be a top-down process. No matter
which candidate finally wins this presidential election, he will not be
able to change the big things in this country and in the world that
must be changed—unless and until there are social movements pushing for
those changes from outside of politics.
It has always been like that. Change will grow from social
movements, from grassroots efforts that push up, not trickle down, and
from critical shifts in culture and values that ultimately affect
politics. Awakening the faith community, and others, to the biblical
vision of social justice and the moral imperative to address the issues
facing us will more likely lead to deeper change than mere lobbying on
Capitol Hill.
Let us each cast our ballot—and then let us continue the work of building a movement.
A New Moment Dawning
A solution to poverty will take both liberals and conservatives and those who are neither.
Forty
years ago, Martin Luther King Jr. was shot down in Memphis, just as he
was about to lead a new Poor People’s Campaign. King’s agenda had moved
beyond civil rights to overcoming poverty in America, and he had just
begun the new effort to challenge economic injustice.
At that time, in 1968, there were 25 million people in America
living in poverty; 40 years later there are roughly 37 million people
still living in poverty. In 1968, the minimum wage was worth $9.47 an
hour in today’s dollars (using inflation-adjusted 2007 figures). The
minimum wage today is $6.55. Forty-seven million Americans have no
health insurance. In 2007, the number of home foreclosure filings rose
to 2.2 million. The poor have lost ground.
But things are changing. God is on the move. Christians are
rediscovering and embracing God’s concern for justice. The church is
uniting across political and denominational lines around a shared
commitment to fight poverty. A new moment is dawning.
Four years ago, Call to Renewal conducted a 12-day “Rolling to
Overcome Poverty” bus tour to say that poverty was a religious and
electoral issue. Despite our best efforts, the word “poverty” was
rarely spoken in either campaign or in the 2004 presidential debates.
THIS YEAR, it’s already very different. For the first time in many
years, poverty is back on the agenda. Two presidential candidates from
both parties, Sen. John Edwards and Gov. Mike Huckabee, made poor and
low-income working people a central priority in this election season.
In Edwards’ campaign, he spoke eloquently about the reality of poverty
in the United States and emphasized his commitment to cut poverty in
the U.S. in half in 10 years.
When Huckabee was governor of Arkansas, he advocated spending money
on poor people—behavior that is offensive to the economically
conservative wing of the Republican Party. Even though Huckabee is a
consistent social conservative, he is considered suspect by the party’s
economic conservatives who, of course, don’t support spending money on
overcoming poverty. Huckabee disagrees with them.
We interview both in this issue of Sojourners. And both made a point
of identifying the importance of presidential leadership. Commenting on
his campaign, Edwards said, “What I saw on the campaign trail and what
I have seen in places like New Orleans demonstrates to me that the
American people will respond. And even if they didn’t, would that stop
us anyway? Are we going to make some political decision that because
this is a difficult trudge, we’re not going to do what we’re supposed
to do? Not me. It’s a leadership responsibility not just to figure out
what people want to do, but to take them to the right place. … Without
sustained presidential, national leadership, it’s extremely hard to do
something serious.”
And, Mike Huckabee noted, “It’s a tragedy that in a country of
extraordinary wealth significant numbers of people every day go to bed
hungry. Some people are oblivious to that reality in this country; it’s
almost as if they think, ‘If we don’t see people, then they don’t
exist.’ That, to me, is one of the great tragedies—that many people who
end up in the bubble of politics see only what is allowed into that
bubble by the people who handle them. It’s one of the reasons I got
involved—the frustration that many people in positions of authority
were unaware of the very world that they were supposedly trying to
lead.”
THE TWO PRESUMPTIVE nominees for president this year have also said
poverty would be a priority for them in a new administration.
On the anniversary of Martin Luther King’s death in April, John
McCain said, “Some people lament privately, others are brave enough to
take their call for change to the public arena. Martin Luther King III
has done his father’s legacy proud this week by courageously insisting
that our nation’s next leader do something about the poverty that
ensnares over 36 million of our citizens. I will answer his call, and
tell him and the American people today that I will make the eradication
of poverty a top priority of the McCain administration.”
A week later, at the Compassion Forum, when asked if he would commit
to a goal of cutting poverty in half in 10 years, Barack Obama
responded, “I absolutely will make that commitment. Understand that
when I make that commitment, I do so with great humility because it is
a very ambitious goal. And we’re going to have to mobilize our society,
not just to cut poverty, but to prevent more people from slipping into
poverty.”
The American people, however, would like more. A recent survey
conducted by Republican pollster Jim McLaughlin found that 56 percent
of respondents think the media is not spending “an adequate amount of
time during the presidential campaign covering the issue of how to
fight poverty in the U.S.,” and 51 percent say they “had not heard
enough during the presidential campaign about what needs to be done to
fight poverty.”
Whoever is elected president, a solution to poverty will take both
liberals and conservatives and those who are neither. It will require a
comprehensive plan that utilizes the strengths of the private sector
(business and unions), the nonprofit sector (including faith-based
organizations), and the public sector (government at all levels—local,
state, and national). Each must do its share and focus on what it does
best. Most important, it will require all of us to continue building a
movement to hold a new president accountable.
The forces arrayed against real change in the U.S. are most
formidable. Politics is unlikely to be changed merely from within—no
matter who wins, and no matter how sincere they are, we will not see
significant change unless, and until, we have a real social movement
for serious poverty reduction from outside of politics. And that kind
of social movement usually has spiritual foundations. That movement has
already begun and building it is now our primary task.
It’s time to end the scandal of poverty in this country and around the world.
A Step Forward on Abortion (by Jim Wallis)
Abortion
is a moral issue, felt deeply on all sides of the debate. That debate
has also been deeply divisive, becoming a "third rail" of American
politics. It often influences outcomes of elections, and therefore the
direction of the country in other important policy areas. Consistent
polling shows that most are between the polarized extremes,
simplistically named "pro-life" and "pro-choice." A majority is both
concerned, even alarmed, about the abortion rate in America, yet is
hesitant to criminalize it. We have sorely needed new common ground
that focuses on reducing the need for and number of abortions. Such
common ground could be supported by both sides and affirmed by many in
the middle.
This past weekend, the Democratic Party's 2008 platform language was
approved. Many have been waiting to see their language about abortion
for this election season. The 1996 and 2000 Democratic platforms
contained a clause that read, "The Democratic Party is a party of
inclusion. We respect the individual conscience of each American on
this difficult issue, and we welcome all our members to participate at
every level of our party." The draft language of the 2008 platform
builds on that clause by supporting two choices that a woman might
make--both of which the Democratic Party "strongly supports."
First, the platform states that the Democratic Party "strongly and
unequivocally supports Roe vs. Wade and a woman's right to choose a
safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay, and we oppose
any and all efforts to weaken or undermine that right." That
traditional position of the Democratic Party was to be expected.
Then the platform says the Democratic Party "also strongly supports
access to comprehensive affordable family planning services and
age-appropriate sex education which empower people to make informed
choices and live healthy lives. We also recognize that such health care
and education help reduce the number of unintended pregnancies and
thereby also reduce the need for abortions."
The platform takes a significant step forward in affirming those
whose moral convictions lead them to make a different decision than
abortion. It reads, "The Democratic Party also strongly supports a
woman's decision to have a child by ensuring access to and availability
of programs for pre- and post-natal health care, parenting skills,
income support, and caring adoption programs." That position will help
make room for people, especially in the religious community, who have
strong moral convictions about abortion. Many pro-life Democrats (and
there are many in the party) have been looking to be heard, respected,
and given a valued space in their own party (as pro-choice Republicans
have in their party).
There is indeed some chance for common ground here in the mutual
respect for different moral convictions and a shared desire to decrease
the need for abortion. There is also a deep and growing conviction
among evangelicals and Catholics that the "life issues" also extend to
the 30,000 children who die globally each day from poverty and
preventable disease, issues of genocide in places like Darfur, human
trafficking, the domestic issues of poverty and health care, the
foreign policy issues of war and peace, and even in threats like
climate change. This election provides us with a pivotal opportunity to
transcend old polarities and attempt to bring people together on common
ground in a "consistent ethic of life" across a range of issues.
There is a "parallelism of choice" here in the Democratic platform
that is a good and new direction that will make many people feel more
welcome. The party is now on record in "strongly" supporting both a
woman's right to choose abortion or to decide to have her child with
promised support, creating common ground in agreeing for the need to
reduce abortions.
All that is a step in the right direction: supportive of individual
conscience, of the different decisions a woman can make, and of
reducing the need for abortions. By supporting the fuller range of
women's choice, the Democratic Party would be empowering more women,
including low-income women who might like to carry their child to term
for personal or moral reasons, but often lack the support to do so.
The rate of unintended pregnancies among poor women (below 100
percent of poverty) is nearly four times that of women above 200
percent of poverty. The abortion rate among women living below the
federal poverty level is more than four times that of women above 300
percent of the poverty level. Three-fourths of women who have an
abortion say a reason is that they cannot afford a child.
Policies and programs that focus on reducing poverty--also strong
planks in the Democratic platform--would increase the economic
stability of women and thus also help reduce the abortion rate.
Policies that prevent unintended pregnancies through accessible family
planning, including contraceptives, age-appropriate sex education--
including abstinence education--reducing teen pregnancy, economic
support, accessible and affordable health care, adoption reform and
incentives, are all critical and are pointed to in the platform.
The Democratic platform has taken an important first step. They took
an important step beyond the traditional position on Roe vs. Wade by
also supporting a woman's decision to have her child. They also sought
and listened to input from moderate religious leaders.
Republicans have long made a strong opposition to abortion a central
issue in their platforms and campaigns. Yet their symbolic commitment
to making abortion illegal, even with a Republican in power, hasn't
made any change in the rate of abortions in America. Religious leaders
should also now urge the Republican Party to move forward. It's not
enough to affirm their traditional support for making abortion illegal;
they should also adopt the policies on reducing abortions. The bottom
line for many Christians is how to save unborn lives.
Of course, it is now up to the Democratic candidate to interpret the platform and shape the issue. In an interview with Christianity Today,
Barack Obama said, "I do think that those who diminish the moral
elements of the decision aren't expressing the full reality of it."
Acknowledging that abortion is a moral issue, no matter what side
you are on, is a way to respect the moral convictions of both sides,
and begin to find some common ground. We could truly make reducing the
abortion rate in America a nonpartisan issue and a bipartisan cause. It
is a common-sense approach that could unite the vast majority of
Americans around a goal that leverages support for women, instead of
coercion, to dramatically reduce the number of abortions in America.
An Evangelical Manifesto
"Being disciples of Jesus means serving him in public as well as private."
Thirty-five years ago, I was one of a group of evangelicals who issued a call for the movement to become more involved in social action. The 1973 “Chicago Declaration of Evangelical Social Concern” pledged “to defend the social and economic rights of the poor and oppressed,” to “deplore the historic involvement of the church in America with racism,” and to “challenge the misplaced trust of the nation in economic and military might—a proud trust that promotes a national pathology of war and violence.”
It concluded: “As evangelical Christians committed to the Lord Jesus Christ and the full authority of the Word of God, we affirm that God lays total claim upon the lives of his people. We cannot, therefore, separate our lives from the situation in which God has placed us in the United States and the world. By this declaration, we endorse no political ideology or party, but call our nation’s leaders and people to that righteousness which exalts a nation.”
Ironically, the major evangelical social action since then has come from the Right. Galvanized by the Supreme Court’s decision legalizing abortion, the Right founded a succession of organizations, from Jerry Falwell’s Moral Majority to Pat Robertson’s Christian Coalition and James Dobson’s Focus on the Family. All were characterized by a priority emphasis on two issues—abortion and same-sex marriage—and by a close identification with the Republican Party.
As one result, the church has a serious image problem. A recent book, unChristian, by Barna pollster David Kinnaman and Gabe Lyons, reveals much about how Millennials, the emerging generation, view Christianity. An overwhelming majority see Christians as hypocritical, judgmental, too focused on the afterlife, and too political in the worst sense of the word. And that image is often particularly true of evangelicals.
But other studies show that when you ask people what they think about Jesus, they say that he was compassionate, loving, and caring, that he hung out with sinners and poor people, and that he was a peacemaker. People think that the followers of Jesus should stand for the same things as Jesus did. It’s time to change the image.
A substantial group of evangelical leaders are trying to do just that. In May, a new statement, “An Evangelical Manifesto: A Declaration of Evangelical Identity and Public Commitment,” was released in Washington, D.C. The statement had two purposes—to address the confusion about who evangelicals are and to clarify an evangelical role in public life. I affirm the views expressed in the manifesto and was happy to accept an invitation to be one of the charter signatories.
On the point of identity, the manifesto says: “Our first task is to reaffirm who we are. Evan°©gelicals are Christ°©ians who define themselves, their faith, and their lives according to the Good News of Jesus of Naz°©areth. … Contrary to widespread misunderstanding today, we Evan°©gelicals should be de°©fined theologically, and not politically, socially, or culturally.”
It then goes on to identify “beliefs that we consider to be at the heart of the message of Jesus and therefore foundational for us.” They are primarily theological affirmations, including: “We believe that being disciples of Jesus means serving him as Lord in every sphere of our lives, secular as well as spiritual, public as well as private, in deeds as well as words, and in every moment of our days on earth, always reaching out as he did to those who are lost as well as to the poor, the sick, the hungry, the oppressed, the socially despised, and being faithful stewards of creation and our fellow creatures.”
ON THE QUESTION of public life, the manifesto recognizes that people are yearning for a moral center to our public life and political discourse, with a better understanding of the choices and challenges that lie beneath our political debates. More and more people want to see a common-good politics replace the politics of individual gain and special interests.
As the manifesto states: “We affirm that to be Evangelical and to carry the name of Christ is to seek to be faithful to the freedom, justice, peace, and well-being that are at the heart of the kingdom of God, to bring these gifts into public life as a service to all, and to work with all who share these ideals and care for the common good. … Called by Jesus to be ‘in’ the world but ‘not of’ the world, we are fully engaged in public affairs ….”
Most of the news coverage of the manifesto, written by religion writers, was good, but its content was not reflected by the headline writers, many of whom spun it as a repudiation of politics. Headlines included, “Group of evangelical Christians writes manifesto urging separation of religious beliefs and politics,” “Evangelicals call for movement to shun politics,” and “Evangelical leaders say their faith is too politicized.” The manifesto itself, however, says “we Evangelicals see it as our duty to engage with politics, but our equal duty never to be completely equated with any party, partisan ideology, economic system, or nationality.”
It’s a point I have made many times: “God is not a Republican or a Democrat,” and that is a good thing. Committed Christians will be, and should be, on both sides of the political aisle. Indeed, people of faith should never be in any party’s or candidate’s political pocket and should, ideally, be the ultimate swing vote because of their moral independence from partisan politics.
But the media just can’t help themselves and always want to squeeze everything into their old framework of left and right, Democrat and Republican. “Left” and “right” are not religious categories, and people of faith should define their political involvement in moral terms, not partisan predictability. Even the media coverage of the manifesto shows how much the statement is needed.
In the future, we will see new alliances and campaigns led by people of faith on a wide range of moral issues that will involve people of faith across the political spectrum and will shake up politics. The social movements that really change politics are precisely that—public engagement defined by religious and moral commitment that defies normal political categories. Eventually, even the media will finally get it.
Seminary at Sing Sing
The months of May and June are always a special time for school commencements. And, each year, I really enjoy my opportunities to give commencement addresses at universities and seminaries across the country. But the one I gave last week was very special indeed.
Last Wednesday evening, June 11, I was blessed and honored to give the commencement address at Sing Sing Prison. The New York Theological Seminary offers a program of theological study leading to the degree of Masters of Professional Studies, with all courses taking place inside the walls of the Sing Sing Correctional Facility in Ossining, New York. In twenty-six years this extraordinary and courageous seminary training program has graduated hundreds who then go on to ministry, both inside the prison system of New York and back in the community when their sentences are finished.
I have often told the story of the first time I visited this unusual and inspiring program at Sing Sing. My book, The Soul of Politics, was being read by the students as part of their seminary curriculum, and I received a letter from the prison inmates themselves, inviting me to meet with them and discuss my book. It sounded interesting, so I wrote back to ask when they would like me to come. A young man wrote to me on behalf of his fellow Sing Sing students saying, "Well, we're free most nights!" He went on, "We're kind of a captive audience here!" The prison authorities were very accommodating and I got to spend several hours with about 70 guys in a crowded room deep in the bowels of the infamous penal institution.
The animated book conversation was one of the most stimulating and rigorous of any I've ever had. I vividly remember much of that discussion, and especially the riveting comment of one young man who said to me, "Jim, most of us at Sing Sing come from just about four or five neighborhoods in New York City. It's like a train. You get on the train in my neighborhood when you are nine or ten years old, and the train ends up here....at Sing Sing." But this young man had experienced a spiritual conversion inside of that prison, and was now enrolled in the New York Seminary program training pastors to work inside the prison system and to go back and work in those neighborhoods from which they had come. After the session that night, the young man came up to me to say goodbye, looked me in the eye, and said, "When I get out, I am going to go back and stop that train."
A few years later, I was in New York City to speak at a town meeting on poverty. Guess who was up front, helping to lead the meeting? I immediately recognized two of the young men I met that night at Sing Sing--Julio Medina and Darren Ferguson. Last week, Julio came back to the commencement at what NYTS calls their "North Campus," now as an illustrious alumnus who spends his days running a very successful drug rehabilitation program in NYC. Darren was being the newly installed pastor of a church in one of the toughest neighborhoods in Queens where some recent shootings had him out on the streets that night instead of at the Sing Sing commencement.
These are very special graduates. To get to where they were last Wednesday night, twelve men had to overcome so many obstacles. I told them, in my commencement address, that they "had an advantage." The advantage they have is in knowing what faith really means, how much it costs, and how it can completely change your life and the world. They know that faith is for the big stuff. And they know that if you have faith, even the size of a grain of mustard seed, you can move mountains. And that's what these men had to move to get to this place on a warm Wednesday night in the visitors' room inside Sing Sing prison. They got to take off their prison jumpsuits, and put on shirts, ties, and graduation robes to wear in front of their beaming and tearful mothers and fathers, wives and children, extended family, and so many friends.
Theo Harris was selected by his fellow students to give the "class reflection." He spoke of the "School of Hard Knocks" whose three core curricula were "street education, peer pressure, and ghetto economics." He said all his fellow class members had to go through the school of hard knocks before they got to go to this school of preparation for the ministry. Theo said he had learned "the greatest lesson of my life....that no one is beyond redemption. That is what sustained me, that is what motivated me, and that is what brought me to where I am today: redeemed." He then named each of his fellow graduates, observed their special gifts and vocations, and then concluded, "We have expressed our desire to make a meaningful contribution to our community. Now, all that remains is for us to go out among them, roll up our sleeves, and really make a difference."
It was a night of rich gratitude and profound hope. And while I have often been inspired by the faces of the young bright graduates facing me on brilliant spring days of school commencements, I have never felt more grateful and more hopeful than I did looking into the spiritually-chiseled faces of these redeemed graduates on a summer's night at Sing Sing prison. Thanks be to God.
Two Firsts
The fact that an African American and a woman each ran so strongly in the long primary season of this election year speaks very well of the country. Having two “firsts” competing for the presidency, Senators Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, makes this a very historic political year. But it was perhaps unfortunate that the two firsts ended up running against each other. After a hard-fought campaign, there inevitably remain some hard feelings among the supporters of both candidates, but especially among many women, who were the core of Clinton’s campaign.
Many of them feel she was treated badly by the press, with many instances of overtly sexist attitudes and commentaries that would never have been directed at another male candidate. I, for one, think they are right -- there were many media comments about Senator Clinton that were sexist and that would never have been used against a man. Indeed, there are often regular comments in the media about women that would simply not be acceptable if similar things were said about men or even ethnic minorities. As a culture, sexist assumptions, attitudes, and language are still far too acceptable to us.
Race is a factor in this political year too, and will undoubtedly appear in the fall campaign. The fact is that we were not going to transcend the realities of either race or gender in this election year because the demons are simply too great and run too deep in our society. But the fact that an African American and a woman did so well, despite the racism and sexism that is still with us in America, is a cause for grateful celebration. And now, as many have said, it’s time for some healing.
While I agree with those who saw sexism in the primary political coverage, I also agree with most political commentators who don’t think it was the ultimate reason Senator Clinton came short of becoming the Democratic Party nominee. I won’t rehearse the now commonly agreed-upon analysis of some of the Clinton campaign’s mistakes and miscalculations or how the Obama campaign ran a little smarter strategy, but, clearly, several strategic considerations were decisive factors.
It is also clear that this political year will be a “change” election. All the candidates, in both parties, ended up running on the country’s clear desire for a change in direction after eight years of the Bush administration. Barack Obama made change the core of his message, and John McCain has been a beneficiary of that same mood in the Republican Party. And while Hillary Clinton was also clearly a change candidate, as the first woman with a real chance to become president, she was still a Clinton, which also made her a “restoration” candidate as well as a change candidate. That ultimately hurt her this election year.
But after her gracious and magnanimous speech endorsing Barack Obama this weekend, the tremendous and historical accomplishments of her presidential campaign are clear for all to see and celebrate. Regardless of whether everyone agrees with her positions on every issue or whether they liked all of her campaign tactics, a clear breakthrough for women in America has taken place. It will now be much more acceptable, possible, and “normal” for women to compete for every political office in the land, and that fact will open up even more doors for women in virtually every area of public life and leadership in this country. And for that, we all have a great deal to thank Hillary Clinton and her loyal supporters for. Marie Wilson, founder and president of the White House Project, a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization that aims to advance women's leadership, wrote this weekend in The Washington Post about
this country's next generation of female leaders -- women of all ages and persuasions who have been searching for the means and encouragement to step into positions of leadership in their communities; women of all political affiliations who thank Hillary Clinton for making the impossible finally appear possible.
Many moving things have been said about how so many little girls now believe that they can be anything they want to be because of Clinton’s impressive campaign. But I want to also point out the impact on little boys, like my own two young sons. They have grown up with a mom as a priest, an ordained clergywoman who they have often seen preaching, speaking, presiding over the Eucharist, and doing weddings and baptisms. The leadership role of women in the church is simply normal and expected for them—it’s what mom does. Clinton’s presidential bid has had a very similar effect on both of them.
My 9-year-old son, Luke, considers Hillary a “friend,” having met her at a New Year’s weekend retreat that both of our families attended. Hillary very graciously sends him little personal notes to congratulate him on his Little League baseball successes. It's a wonderful gesture that utterly defies the harsh commentaries on her style that she sadly so often receives. At the CNN candidate forum on faith, values, and poverty that Sojourners co-sponsored last June, Luke got to meet her again and told the senator privately, “Hillary, I can’t vote, but if I could, I would vote for you.” She beamed the biggest smile and said, “Oh Luke, that means so much to me!” Luke has remained totally faithful to Hillary during the primary political season, proudly wearing a Clinton button on his safety patrol belt, and was one of her disappointed supporters when she finally had to concede. Five-year-old Jack voted just the way his big brother did in their D.C. public school primary, resisting the Obama landslide.
My boys, like lots of little girls and boys, now believe that a woman running for president is normal, possible, and to be expected, as they do for an African-American candidate. Luke is looking forward to the day when a black woman will be able to run. “Wouldn’t that be cool, Dad?” he says. It surely would, and for that we have both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton to thank.
A Generation Comes of Age
These young evangelicals refuse to reduce the gospel to a "fire-insurance" salvation pitch.
From mid-January to mid-March, I traveled to 22 cities on my Great Awakening book tour. The most compelling evidence I saw that we really are entering a “post-Religious Right America” is the shifting political agenda and theological emphasis of a new generation of twentysomething evangelicals. I met thousands of them on the road as they came out in large numbers for book events.
I travel with one of these young evangelicals, Chris LaTondresse, a missionary kid who grew up in the former Soviet Union and who recently graduated from Bethel University in St. Paul, Minnesota. From the conversations he and I have been having with those in attendance at book events, churches, and evangelical college campuses, it’s clear that churchgoers growing up in conservative pews are finally coming of age with regard to peace and justice issues. This emerging generation is the leading edge of a new movement of progressive evangelicals.
In Boston, I spoke at the historic Park Street Church, where the premier evangelist of the Second Great Awaken°©ing, Charles Finney, preached in 1831. The Billy Graham of his day, Finney called people to faith in Jesus Christ and then to enlist in the anti-slavery campaign. Finney actually pioneered the “altar call” so he could sign up his converts for the anti-slavery campaign. Another famous anti-slavery crusader of the time, the more secular William Lloyd Garrison, delivered his first abolitionist speech in the same church when he was only 23 years old.
On that weekday night at Park Street, I encountered a packed church of hundreds of young evangelicals who want to be a generation of new “abolitionists”—focusing on the most vulnerable people in our world today. They suspect that Jesus would likely care about the 30,000 children around the world who die each day due to unnecessary poverty and preventable disease.
At Fuller Seminary in Pasadena, California, they couldn’t find enough chairs for all the students who turned up, with many sitting on the floor or standing in the back of the room. The same thing happened at Wheaton College outside of Chicago, the most famous evangelical school in America, and at Westmont College in Santa Barbara, where students packed the gymnasium on a Friday night. Many of these students realize that Christianity has an image problem: It is seen as hypocritical, judgmental, too focused on the afterlife, and too partisan. They desire something radically new and different, yet still solidly rooted in Jesus.
THE YOUNG evangelicals are not alone, but are part of a broader, new, spiritually rooted progressive movement that includes the religious from many traditions, the “spiritual but not religious,” and also secular youth who hunger for a moral dimension to public life.
I met young Cath°©olics who are discovering their own church’s social teaching about the common good; I met seminary students in mainline Pro°©testantism forming “bea°©titudes societies” to study the core teachings of Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount and packing our event at Grace Cathedral in San Francisco. Alongside them are young black pastors who don’t want to just sing the old anthems of the civil rights movement, but seek to make their own history for justice. Next-generation Latino Pentecostals and Catholics see issues such as immigration as key religious and moral questions, and the sons and daughters of Asian-American immigrant Christians are not just focusing on assimilation as their parents did but are reaching out into their communities. All these are making the vital connection between evangelism and social justice
I see parallel movements of young people eager for “Jewish renewal” connected to social justice, and a prophetic new generation of Mus°©lims who are standing up to extremism. You can feel the energy of a movement when you are with this new generation—it is something that most of the media has so far missed.
The quantitative picture painted by Barna pollster David Kinnaman in his recent book unChristian is qualitatively borne out in this group of Generation Y “insiders”—those raised inside the church but frustrated with the status quo. They will shake things up in the years ahead, both politically and theologically.
Politically, their agenda is broader and deeper, no longer beholden to a single partisan ideology. However they choose to vote, this constituency could develop the capacity that elections rarely have by themselves—the ability to really change politics.
Theologically, these young evangelicals are abandoning a worldview that reduces the gospel of Jesus Christ to an afterlife-oriented, “fire-insurance” salvation pitch. These are Matthew 25, Luke 4, and “Sermon on the Mount” Christians. They are looking for churches that offer a personal, dynamic, and vibrant faith that is powerful enough to change their lives, their relationships, their neighborhoods, their nation, and their world. They really believe that the kingdom of God represents God’s best hopes and dreams for this present age, and not only for the life to come.
For these young Christians, the Re°©li°©gious Right has been replaced by Jesus, and that is real progress. They are most interested in how Christians and the church are supposed to change the world—which is the major topic of The Great Awakening’s third chapter, “How to Change the World, and Why: Rules of Engagement.” They also want to focus on the seven chapters that call for commitment on the great issues of our time, because that’s exactly what they are ready to do—make commitments.
The young evangelical worldview is being disciplined by a new global context. They get that context not just from coffee-infused, late-night seminary conversations but also from mission trips that bring them into relationship with single mothers living in the crumbling remains of America’s inner cities, with children living on garbage dumps in Mexico, with teenage girls rescued out of Southeast Asia’s sex industry, and with the boy soldiers of sub-Saharan Africa.
This new generation is responding to The Great Awakening’s message because of what they already see happening in their world, and because of the faith that is welling up within them. They are summoning the confidence to articulate a new vision for Christianity for the 21st century, rooted in the timeless orthodoxy of a first-century rabbi. And once it emerges, it could change everything.
A Real 'Values' Agenda
"The Church is the conscience of the state."
As
we enter the 2008 election year, it’s time to start talking about
Christian faithfulness and responsibility when it comes to exercising
our voting rights. As Christians who seek to both live and vote by our
values, we should all remind ourselves of what those values are and how
they should affect our political engagement.
In October, Richard Land of the Southern Baptist Convention and I
held a dialogue at a summit focused on the “values” for values voters,
a gathering put on by an arm of the Family Research Council. In that
dialogue, we found areas of real agreement and also healthy
disagreement—and that is good. And there were lessons for all
Christians that we discussed.
We agreed that the issue is not whether faith should help to shape our public life, but how.
I said I believed that Christians across the political spectrum
might have more common concerns than people think—and potential common
ground—on some critical issues. There are principles and policy
directions that could bridge and even transcend our bitter partisan
divides and move us forward.
First, there are biblical principles of the kingdom of God on which
we can agree. Our faith-inspired vision of a “beloved community” should
ground all of our efforts to transform our society.
Second, there are prudential judgments on policies where there is room for disagreement and deeper dialogue.
Third, we must make sure our faith trumps ideology.
For me, I told the FRC, that often means making sure that my faith
challenges the Left. I suggested they probably don’t have that problem!
But I encouraged them to make sure that their faith challenges the
Right.
And together we should challenge those who wish to banish religion
from the public square. But religion has no monopoly on morality, and
the moral discourse we need to have about politics this election season
must be open to all citizens, whether they are religious or not.
Religious convictions must be translated into moral arguments, which if
they are to be implemented must win the political debate. Religious
people don’t get to win just because we are religious (in a nation that
is often claimed to be a Judeo-Christian country). Like any other
citizens, we have to convince our fellow citizens that what we propose
is best for the common good—for all of us.
ON WHAT DO WE agree? Most of us agree that faith plays an important
role in public life; faith is personal but never private. But as Martin
Luther King Jr. said, “The church must be reminded that it is not the
master or the servant of the state, but rather the conscience of the
state.” King also never endorsed a candidate but instead made them
endorse his agenda. There’s a lesson for us in that.
Red and blue, left and right, are not biblical categories. They are
political ones, and religious people don’t easily fit the labels—nor
should we. God’s politics resists ideology and often calls us to
transcend our narrow political categories and place our commonality as
Christians above any political allegiance or identification with a
political party. We can come together around a broader and deeper
values politics.
God is not a Republican or a Democrat. The people of God must not
be in the pocket of any political party. There is a great danger in
being too close to either side and not maintaining our critical
prophetic distance. We should be the ultimate swing vote, judging all
the candidates by our moral compass.
Presidential candidates will be seeking our votes, and we will be
bombarded by their advertising. But we should all remember that even if
our favorite candidate wins (whoever that turns out to be), that person
will not be able to really change the biggest moral issues of our time
unless a movement from outside continues to push him or her. Remember,
Lyndon Johnson did not become a civil rights leader until a faith-based
civil rights movement made him one.
When politics fails to resolve the great moral issues, social
movements often rise up to change politics—and the best social
movements have spiritual foundations. We have been divided, but perhaps
we can find ways we might work together in the future on the greatest
moral issues of our time.
In the spirit of the great social movements that Christians have
helped to lead—such as the abolition of slavery, child labor laws,
women’s suffrage, and the civil rights movement—we might do it again.
The more we look like our evangelical foreparents, the more we see our
faith as the spark for social justice, the more faithful and united we
could be.
And this is the key: The biblical prophets tell us that God judges
societies not by their gross national product, their military strength,
or their cultural dominance, but by their justice and
righteousness—especially how they treat the weak and vulnerable. There
are multiple threats to human life and dignity that suggest a new moral
agenda that could bring us together. Some of the elements of that new
agenda could be:
• Overcoming extreme global poverty and disease, as well as unnecessary poverty at home
• Finding a better path to national and global security
• Advancing a consistent ethic of the sanctity of life
• Healing the wounds of racism and sexism
• Ending human trafficking and promoting human rights
• Strengthening marriage and families
• Renewing the moral fabric of our culture
• Protecting God’s creation
If we could agree on these basic principles, we could reshape
American politics—and, with God’s help, we might change some of the big
things that politics has been unable to change. That new agenda,
consistent with our deeply held values and not bound to the standard
right-left battles of American politics, could provide a new moral
center for our public life. And if we could agree on the agenda, we
could then focus on how best to accomplish it.
As for politics in an election year, the U.S. Catholic bishops have
some good advice for us. They counsel Christians to be political but
not partisan, principled but not ideological, clear but also civil, and
engaged but not used.
Because, above all, we are called to be faithful to the principles of the kingdom of God.
|
