[+] Jim Wallis: Putting God Back in Politics

[Thanks to Rev. Dr. Dale K. Edmondson for forwarding this excellent article by Rev. Jim Wallace, Editor of Sojourners magazine. The point it makes -- that Democrats are letting the Republicans co-opt the subject of religion and politics -- is a compelling one. There's a whole range of public discussion and discourse that it not being addressed. Religion is not the purview of Republicans and other conservatives alone; there is indeed a healthy and robust group of liberal (and also Democratic) citizens and church leaders who, Mr. Wallis says, need to stake out their position(s) publically.]

From SojoMail (Sojourners):

This article appeared in the December 28, 2003 edition of The New York Times. We share it with you in hopes that it will inspire you to engage the issues in this critical election year - as you read our message, support our ministry, and share us with your friends. Best wishes for a happy and hopeful new year!


Putting God Back in Politics

by Jim Wallis

As the Democratic candidates for president attend religious services for the holidays, their celebrations may be tempered by an uncomfortable fact: churchgoing Americans tend to vote Republican.

An overwhelming majority of Americans consider themselves to be religious. Yet according to the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, people who attend church more than once a week vote Republican by 63 percent to 37 percent; people who seldom or never attend vote Democratic by 62 percent to 38 percent.

This disparity should concern Democrats - if not as a matter of faith then as a matter of politics. More important, it should concern anyone who cares about the role of religion in public life. By failing to engage Republicans in this debate, the Democrats impoverish us all.

President Bush and the Republicans clearly have an advantage with people of faith as an election year approaches. Republicans are more comfortable talking about religious values and issues, and they are quick to promise that their faith will affect their policies (even if, like their Democratic counterparts, they don't always follow through on their campaign promises).

President Bush is as public and expressive about his faith as any recent occupant of the White House. Among his first acts as president was to establish the Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives, which helps religious and community groups get federal financing for some of their work. Although the "faith-based initiative" has turned out to be more symbolic than substantial, symbolism matters - in religion as well as politics.

The Democratic candidates, in contrast, seem uncomfortable with the subject of religion. (The exception is Joseph Lieberman, though even he seems less comfortable now than he was in 2000.) They stumble over themselves to assure voters that while they may be people of faith, they won't allow their religious beliefs to affect their political views.

For too many Democrats, faith is private and has no implications for political life. But what kind of faith is that? Where would America be if the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. had kept his faith to himself?

Howard Dean, the leading challenger to President Bush, illustrates the Democrats' problem. Dr. Dean recently said he left his church in Vermont over a dispute about a bike path, and explained that his faith does not inform his politics. He has also said the presidential race should stay away from the issues of "guns, God and gays" and focus on jobs, health care and foreign policy.

By framing the issue in this way - declining to discuss overtly "religious" topics - Dr. Dean allows Republicans to define the terms of the debate. The "religious issues" in this election will be reduced to the Ten Commandments in public courthouses, marriage amendments, prayer in schools and, of course, abortion.

These issues are important. But faith informs policy in other areas as well. What about the biblical imperatives for social justice, the God who lifts up the poor, the Jesus who said, "blessed are the peacemakers"?

How a candidate deals with poverty is a religious issue, and the Bush administration's failure to support poor working families should be named as a religious failure. Neglect of the environment is a religious issue. Fighting pre-emptive and unilateral wars based on false claims is a religious issue (a fact not changed by the capture of Saddam Hussein).

Such issues could pose problems for the Bush administration among religious and nonreligious people alike - if someone were to define them in moral terms. The failure of the Democrats to do so is not just a political miscalculation. It shows they do not appreciate the contributions of religion to American life.

The United States has a long history of religious faith supporting and literally driving progressive causes and movements. From the abolition of slavery to women's suffrage to civil rights, religion has led the way for social change.

The separation of church and state does not require banishing moral and religious values from the public square. America's social fabric depends on such values and vision to shape our politics - a dependence the founders recognized.

It is indeed possible (and necessary) to express one's faith and convictions about public policy while still respecting the pluralism of American democracy. Rather than suggesting that we not talk about "God," Democrats should be arguing - on moral and even religious grounds - that all Americans should have economic security, health care and educational opportunity, and that true faith results in a compassionate concern for those on the margins.

Democrats should be saying that a just foreign and military policy will not only work better, but also be more consistent with both our democratic and spiritual values. And they must offer a moral alternative to a national security policy based primarily on fear, and say what most Americans intuitively know: that defeating terrorism is both practically and spiritually connected to the deeper work of addressing global poverty and resolving the conflicts that sow the bitter seeds of despair and violence.

Many of these policy choices can be informed and shaped by the faith of candidates and citizens - without transgressing the important boundaries of church and state.

God is always personal, but never private. The Democrats are wrong to restrict religion to the private sphere - just as the Republicans are wrong to define it solely in terms of individual moral choices and sexual ethics. Allowing the right to decide what is a religious issue would be both a moral and political tragedy.

Not everyone in America has the same religious values, of course. And many moral lessons are open to interpretation. But by withdrawing into secularism, the Democrats deprive Americans of an important debate.

[Jim Wallis is editor of Sojourners magazine and the convener of Call to Renewal, a national network of churches working to overcome poverty. ]

Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company

Give to Sojourners at this critical time! Go to https://secure.ga3.org/03/double_the_impact/nj71oe861fjMs

In this critical election year, help Sojourners' raise a faithful and effective voice for justice and peace. Your gift today will help us to reach more and more people as we hold all sides of the political spectrum accountable to biblical values of concern for the poor, care for the environment, and true peacemaking.

Register, Pray, Vote! Register to vote, update your address, or change your party registration - because your vote matters! Go to: http://www.sojo.net/vote


Send this article to friends, family, co-workers - anyone who shares your concern for justice and peace this election year! Go to: http://go.sojo.net/sojourners/join-forward.html?domain=sojourners&r=j71oe861fjMs

[+] Seattle's Dr. Stephen Jones on "Choice"

by Dr. Stephen Jones

[The following is excerpted from Dr. Jones's column in "The Spire," weekly newsletter of the Seattle First Baptist Church, Washington.]

... I am pro-choice. I am not opposed to healthy discussion about perimeters around the freedom that women deserve. Yet, I believe that women should be leading the political discussion and not merely recipients of what men (Congress, mostly) feel is best for them. "Father knows best" speaks aptly of the 1950s. It does not belong in the 21st Century. Men deserve to be a part of the abortion dialogue, but not dominate it.

The recent law passed by Congress (first since 1973's Roe vs. Wade) and signed by President Bush violates the freedom that women deserve in making decisions regarding themselves, their bodies, and the life of a fetus within them. When Congress refused to make an exception to protect the health and well-being of pregnant women, it took away a fundamental right which mothers, doctors, and husbands must have, namely, to protect a woman's life late in the term if that is the only alternative. I also think that late term abortions are viable when it becomes obvious that the fetus would, if allowed to go full-term, suffer life-threatening complications for the new-born. I recently read of a mother who, during a routine seven-month ultrasound, learned that her baby had Tisomy-13, an extreme disorder in which the infant could not live. The infant would be born without eyes, failed kidneys, and nearly every major organ severely impacted. My argument here is not for abortion, but for choice. Parents ahould not have those choices taken from them by an invasive government.

I suspect that every abortion is grotesque, and late term abortions can be described in revolting detail. War is at least as grotesque and unnecessary. I suspect within a decade we will look back on open heart surgery as barbaric as less invasive techniqies are discovered.

I believe life is sacred. I can even go along with the argument that it is sacred from inception. But sacred doesn't mean that the fetus has rights a mother does not. A mother's life is also sacred. And a family's right is sacred. Choice is sacred.

The truth is that late term abortions accounted for only .02% of all abortions in our country in 2000. The reason this has become the focus is that it is deemed the easiest first step toward a wider agenda of eliminating choice in America. Mothers and parents have mostly been responsible in making what have to be very difficult and painful decisions that everyone of them would avoid if they could. This new legislation fixes a problam that doesn't exist.

There is a March of Choice in Washington D.C. on april 25, 2004. I would be proud if members of our congregation were marching in it.

P.S. I would be happy to hear from those who disagree. There is never "one position" for persons of faith.

[Dr. Jones is the Senior/Coordinating Minister of the Seattle First Baptist Church. He may be contacted at info@SeattleFirstBaptist.org.]

"Speaking to Power" Broadcast on PBS (Bill Moyers NOW)

Since the terrorist attacks of September 11, leaders of America's religious right have filled the airwaves with calls denouncing Islam as a religion, promoting a belligerent American foreign policy, and advocating closer ties between church and state. To much of the press and country, Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, and their fundamentalist brethren are the face of American Christianity and their drumbeat of Biblical literalism has become the most familiar refrain of the Christian gospel.

But a different Christian voice is challenging the monolith of the religious right and speaking to America and its leaders in language reminiscent of the Hebrew prophets and on behalf of a vision of social justice that many Christians trace to the teachings of Jesus himself. That voice belongs to an African-American son of Pentecostal parents who grew up in the segregated south and rose to occupy one of the most preeminent pulpits in the country-the very church, as paradox would have it, started by John D. Rockefeller Jr.

"Speaking to Power" traces Riverside's theological roots and its history and architecture, revealing a church dedicated to the revolutionary notion that science, learning, and faith can co-exist happily under the same vaulted roof with a religiously diverse congregation. Riverside's commitment to its ecumenical mission was challenged when it hired Forbes to be its senior minister. Some church members were uncomfortable with a man whose style mixed fervor and learning, and they feared he would turn Riverside into a southern black church, or a "holy roller" church.

Under Forbes' leadership, worship continues unabated at Riverside. The services are packed and the 2400-member congregation carries on active lay ministries throughout the city and the world, from offering showers to the homeless every Monday morning to working for social justice in Central America. Operating from a tradition that has never fled from the conflicts of the time, Forbes' belief that religion does not stand above politics but should speak to politics offers a Christian view of public issues that is markedly different from the fundamentalist dogmatists often seen on television. And when they speak of religion as a polarizing force, Forbes sees a new theology of religion that strengthens, rather than divides, democracy.

"The new reality is, that nobody in today's world can be truly mature in their religion without making space for respect for all of the other religious traditions," he tells Moyers. "There will be no wholesale dismissing of every group other than my own Christian tradition. This doesn't smell like the spirit of Christ."

NOW WITH BILL MOYERS continues online at PBS.org (www.pbs.org/now). Log on to the site for a history of the progressive religious movement in the United States; for a look at current religious efforts to influence American public policy from the Christian right as well as the Christian left; for a compendium of NOW's past coverage of faith issues; for a history of the separation between church and state; for an explanation of faith-based initiatives and the legislation behind them; for statistics on where Americans put their faith; for a brief profile of Forbes and of the Riverside
church; and more.

Preview this program at www.PBS.org/now/press/forbes_video_large.html.
Transcript of program (which aired in Dec. 2003) available at www.pbs.org/now/transcript/transcript248_full.html. No schedule for repeat showing has been announced.

Best wishes for the holidays and new year 2004

During this holiday season,

Mend a quarrel. Seek out a forgotten friend.
Dismiss suspicion and replace it with trust.

Write a love letter. Share some treasure.
Give a soft answer. Encourage youth.

Manifest your loyalty in word and deed
Keep a promise. Find the time. Forego a grudge.

Forgive an enemy. Apologize if you are wrong
Try to understand. Flout envy. Laugh a little more.

Examine your demands on others. Listen!

Think of your neighbor first. Be appreciative.
Be kind and gentle. Be deserving of the confidence of others.

Extend your hand to a stranger and the warmth of your hearth to a child

Find beauty in all that surrounds you. Speak your love,
speak it again; speak it still once again.


We wish you a merry Christmas
and the best of the new year.

Rick and Sandy
Ecumenical News
[Thanks to Alma Marroquin for forwarding the above poem.]

[+] 'Tis Not the Season to Be Jolly

by Rev. Dr. Rod Romney

I think this Christmas, 2003, is not the season to be jolly. I know I'm at risk of sounding like Ebenezer Scrooge, whose indictment of Christmas was summed up in the _expression,"Bah, humbug!" But it is not Christmas I am indicting. I am unfailingly stirred each year by the profound mystery and simple splendor of Christmas. I am, however, indicting the significant number of tragic circumstances taking place in our world today, all of which we have the resources to correct if we can find the will to do so.

We are living in a nation that rewards the rich, releases corporations from supervision, and is waging a war not just on Iraq but on our own economy. Over the last two and a half years there has been an unprecedented 1.2 percent decline in wage and salary income.

Almost nine million people are unemployed today, according to Job-Watch, and two million of that number have been unemployed for more than two years. Also, 2.3 million more are not included in these statistics because they have given up looking for work. Every one of those eleven-million-plus individuals is a human tragedy. Among that number nine million go hungry, and forty-three million are without health care. Current statistics indicate that thirty-five million people now fit into the poverty category.

How does the President of this country address this horrible issue? He doesn't. Bush and his cabinet (all extremely wealthy individuals) are building an economy ever more dependent on war, one that favors the rich and penalizes the poor. They do not believe that government needs to care for its needy. They want to privatize faith-based groups to do that. They do not worry that our schools are crumbling, for that will strengthen their case for private school vouchers.

I don't think Bush himself is mean or evil, but I do think he is horribly disconnected from the expanding problems of poverty he is helping to create. He is quoted by Jim Wallis as saying, "I don't understand how poor people think," which is an admission of his own disconnect. He was described by Molly Ivins as a man born with a silver spoon in his mouth who has been eating from it ever since, while Jim Hightower declared he had been "born on third and thinks he hit a triple."

In 1999, when Bush was governor of Texas, the Department of Agriculture released statistics on hunger that placed Texas as a leader among all other states. Bush became testy and defensive, declaring that "no children are going to go hungry in this state." But according to reputable reports, Bush never spent time with people in the colonias of South Texas nor in the shantytowns of East Texas. He was simply unaware of the reality of the state he was governing. The story has now magnified itself; he is seemingly unaware that in vital areas in this country--such as environment, labor, schools, taxes, health care--we are steadily losing ground because of funding cuts. As taxes are cut for the rich, services are cut for the poor. The war in Iraq is problematic in itself, but how can we justify the war being waged in our own country on the poorest of the poor?

At the heart of Christmas is a yearning cry for social justice and a more humane world. A young unmarried Jewish peasant girl discovered she was pregnant, and instead of feeling shame and horror, she was filled with the realization that this child she was bearing had a divine mission to make the world a better place. She sang a hymn about the mercy of God that extended to all generations, a God who would rout the proud and all their schemes, bring down the mighty from their thrones, and raise on high the lowly and dispossessed. "He has filled the hungry with good things and sent the rich away empty." (Luke 1:46-55) Mary was given this strange and wonderful vision that the child she was bearing would lead the way to a better and more equitable social order.

This child, named Jesus, became a profound teacher who is remembered to this day for his life and wisdom. He identified primarily with the poor, for he was poor himself. He sought no public office, never looked for social recognition or status, and saw every person as unique and worthy. His primary message was, "The Kingdom of God is in your midst." Kingdom can be translated commonwealth, meaning everyone has an equal share. It can also be shortened to kindom, meaning we are all related to each other. We partake equally in the blessings and love of God. Our major assignment is to love God and one another, as we love ourselves. It was a simple message, but deeply profound.

If that message could be lived out by everyone, we would eliminate vested corporate interests that favor the rich, the systematic dispossession of the poor, and all forms of discimination. The angel promised Mary, "With God nothing will be impossible."

This is not the season to be jolly. It is not a time to cover our eyes and pretend that the world is full of wonderful light. It is the season to be aware of the needs around us, especially the growing needs of the poor. How ironic that the richest nation in the world has a vast and growing number of its people mired in poverty. This is the season to become more loving to one another, to our earth and to all living creatures. It is the season to receive the gift that God wants to give to all, the gift of compassion and understanding, the gift of love. Then having received it, we go forth to share it.

On a personal note, Beverly and I are well and happy in our new home in Idaho Falls. We spent Thanksgiving in Portland with her family, and at Christmas will be here with mine. Rather than exchanging gifts with each other, we agreed to make gifts to those places and institutions that care for the needy. Jesus said, "As you do it to the least of these, my children, you do it unto me." May our hearts be stirred in profound and new ways this Christmas, as together we share the gift we have received.

[Dr. Romney is a retired pastor of Seattle First Baptist Church, Seattle, WA and Lakeshore Avenue Baptist Church, Oakland, CA. He and his wife Beverly recently returned to live in Idaho, where Rod was born and grew up. He now publishes a newsletter entitled Romney's Rubrics and may be reached at rodret69@aol.com.]

[+] From Jewish Voice for Peace: U.S. Perpetuates the Myth of the Two-Party Conflict in Israel-Palestine

by Liat Weingart

Director of Programs and Campaigns Liat Weingart takes apart the myth that this is an "Israeli-Palestinian conflict" by examining the US role in fueling violence in the Middle East.

Sometimes I get the feeling that we're not all talking about the same conflict here. In America, we like to talk about the conflict as if the major actors are only Israelis and Palestinians.

For example, Seeds of Peace is a wonderful summer camp that brings Israeli and Arab youth together in Maine to spend time together, to get to know one another, to break through misconceptions, prejudices and fears. At the end of his administration, President Bill Clinton made a public statement supporting Seeds of Peace, saying it was "the best thing he's seen in the region" during his eight years as president. In his framing of the program, Americans could rest easy knowing that we had done something to contribute to an end to the conflict.

But this is a skewed picture of reality. A more accurate picture looks like this:

After Israeli and Palestinian youth spend a month widening their frame of understanding in Maine, they are sent back to suffer under the weight of an occupation that we — Americans — ensure will continue long into the future. While the American administration builds its image of neutrality and supports programs like Seeds of Peace, behind the scenes, it actively engages in subverting peace. The US government not only remains silent in the face of escalating violence. It also provides the weapons to keep the level of violence heightened. . .

The United States keeps the Middle East under its heavy yoke by perpetuating the myth that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is one that exists between Israelis and Palestinians alone. The truth is, the conflict is largely fueled by the US government, with the willing assistance of a small group of American corporations with a financial interest in violence. Perhaps we shouldn’t be so surprised to find out that the main actors in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict are actually Americans.

[Read the full article at
http://www.jewishvoiceforpeace.org/about/newsletters/2003/newsletter1106.html#Commentary]