John H Armstrong

The Problem with Nondiscrimination Laws and the Rights of Homosexuals

I hate discrimination. I believe that when it comes to barring people from public places civil rights laws are quite necessary. I also believe that discrimination against homosexuals, because of their sexual orientation or private practice, is wrong. We presently face a number of legal struggles about discrimination that will impact all of us in one way or another. Let me explain what I mean with an intriguing development out of Great Britain. 

Fifteen years ago Peter and Hazelmary Bull made headlines when some reporters saw their "stodgy guest policy" (Wall Street Journal, 3/16/12) in these words: "No double rooms for unmarried couples." Since 1986 the Bulls had been turning away unwed couples at their Cornish B & B. No one bothered much until very recently. They just considered the Bulls out of touch. But things have changed now and this change is happening all across the West. 

A British appeals court recently upheld a stiff fine against the Bulls for turning down two men who wanted a room in their B & B 2008. These two men were joined in a legal civil union. (Great Britain has accepted civil unions since 2005.)  The Bulls, who refer to themselves as "born again Christians," feel they should decline such guests. The charge against them is that they violated the 2007 Equality Act. They have now appealed to the U.K. Supreme Court and if they lose they will appeal to the European Court of Human Rights. (They are being represented by a very conservative Christian legal group.) Current British law exempts some from nondiscrimination laws, especially churches. But commercial guesthouses do not get such an exemption, thus the battle with the Bulls and their house. 

Here is the point. The Bulls are allowed to hold their convictions in private but they cannot practice them in regards to their B & B because it is a "service and public function."  The Bulls are seeking "reasonable accommodation or expansion" for enterprises such as their own business. Here is the problem. The equality law is constructed to allow religious liberty only within a religious organization. Anne Jolis, writing in the Wall Street Journal, adds, "That's true enough, though Britain's equality and nondiscrimination rules already have more loopholes than a coherent principle can bear. A case in point involves British Airways, a private business that has had the better luck enforcing its standards under Britain's patchwork of rights, responsibilities and opt-outs." 

A dispute with British Airways (BA) now makes its way to the European Court of Human Rights. In this case BA has a long-standing dress code that bars employees from wearing visible religious symbols. In 2006 a check-in attendant named Nadia Eweida refused to stop displaying her crucifix and then refused a job that would have placed her in a non-public place with BA. She was placed on unpaid leave for six months. Subsequently BA relaxed its policy in 2007. British courts rejected her claim and BA was not forced to pay her back wages. She is now arguing her case before the European court in Strasbourg. Her argument? The UK court failed to protect her religious rights to nondiscrimination in the workplace. The government's argument, in this case, is actually based on the fact that Christianity does not require a believer to wear a symbol of their faith. (To be honest about this, I have to agree with this interpretation!) Wearing such a sign does not constitute the "practice" of the Christian faith. She is thus engaging in behavior that is "inspired by belief" but not essential to her expression of Christian faith. The court also argued, and this is a more persuasive point, that a private company has no "positive obligations to ensure this right." Her rights were not violated since she was "free to resign and seek employment elsewhere." 

But here is the problem with the argument of the Bulls with regard to their B & B. Just as no one forces Christians who wear symbols to work for secular-sensitive airlines nothing should compel a same-sex couple to lodge at a B & B that seeks to run its business by their Christian principles. In the case of the Bulls the government's position, says the Wall Street Journal "comes down to the fact that no one forces Christians to open businesses." 

A Downing Street spokesman said a few weeks ago that if a European court finds against Ms. Eweida, then the government may look into new protections for religious workers against private standards such as dress codes. The Wall Street Journal concludes: "That might satisfy devout Britains for a while, as would a new carve-out for religious business owners such as the Bulls--at least until the next time anyone's convictions, mores, practices or habits conflict with anyone else's in the country. Meanwhile, these small victories will only further muddle companies' freedoms to dispose of their resources as they see fit--regardless of faith, sexual orientation, or ever-changing estimations of political expedience."

These same types of arguments are already playing themselves out in the legal and political culture of the U.S. If you think this is simply a matter of "equality" or "prejudice" then I believe you clearly fail to grasp the deep significance of the points made above. Does this rise to the level of refusing service to a black person in a hotel or restaurant in the 1960s? It could if you are really honest about it. Does a company have the right to make standards about how employees should dress when the public will engage with them? I think so. But does this mean that there can be no show of religion in such a place? What about Muslim female employees who wear the traditional head coverings? I would guess this would be allowed because it would be seen as part of the practice of Islam.

I, for one, am not profoundly alarmed by this debate. Thus I do not agree with Christians who see all of this as a form of persecution. But I also do not agree that all laws against discrimination are entirely equal. This seems to be the reason we are still working this out in public contexts. I hope Christians will keep a cooler temperament about these debates and contribute to the future by helping us end discrimination against homosexuals wherever possible without sacrificing our religious freedom in the process. The way forward is slippery. Many challenges will have to be faced legally. I pray that we will respond with civility and grace in how we engage in these struggles about the law. I do not believe my rights are under constant assault. I do not believe there is a vast conspiracy to deny me my faith or to stop my public practice of Christianity. I do believe the way I can express my faith is changing and it is only right that I observe this and respond where I can since mission must always be contextualized if it is done well. At the same time I am committed to the open practice of religious freedom. If religious freedom is only a private right then we have lost a vital freedom for all of us, including homosexuals, blacks, non-Christians, etc. This debate will not end soon. Let us pray for wisdom in how we respond. There will be plenty of heat from the far left and far right but Christians should look for better ways to show the love of Christ in public. 

The Slave Haven Underground Museum

During my time @ CCT (last week) I visited the Slave Haven Underground Railroad Museum in downtown Memphis. The museum is a house on the former estate of Jacob Burkle. Burkle immigrated to the United States from Germany in the 1840s. He initially settled in Arkansas. In fact, the place where he settled was Stuttgart. If you guessed that this was a destination for many German immigrants you would be right. Now, the irony of this little factoid is that my mother, and her Freeman family, were all residents of Stuttgart going back to some time in the 19th century. I have childhood memories from the 1950s in Stuttgart. It was called "The Rice Growing Capital of the United States." It was also famous for duck hunting, even billing itself, if memory is right, as "The Duck Hunting Capital of the World." (Don't ask me how they got that claim.) I still remember being awakened in the early morning at the Riceland Hotel by duck hunters leaving before daylight quacking on their duck callers as they walked merrily down the hallways oblivious to anyone who was lodging at the Riceland and not a duck hunter. (Is this the way hunters are when they get into their "zone" and get up so early to pursue their sport?) You can guess that I never got into ducks! For that matter I never wanted to rice farm either but I did love getting boxes of rice for Christmas every year.

Back to the Jacob Burkle story. In 1856 he moved to Tennessee and bought a farm just a few city blocks (in today's Memphis) from the Mississippi River. Burkle was a well-respected citizen and owned the Memphis Stockyards. This thriving business gave him a good income so he lived on a very large plantation. 

When Burkle built his family home he did something no one else in Memphis had a clue he was doing. He build a special basement, with unique entrance/exist points. His home was designed and built to help runaway slaves get their freedom. Burkle become the single most significant Underground Railroad leader in one of the two or three largest slaves trading cities in America. Slaves would come and go through his home weekly, escaping at night to get into the bottom of boats headed north on the Mississippi River. The goal was to get to the Ohio River in the North and then on to Canada and real freedom! The risks were great, for the slaves and for Jacob Burkle. But he pulled it off, even buying slaves in the Memphis market to fool his neighbors. He would then treat these African slaves as brothers and sisters in private and eventually release them. (In these actions Burkle was much like Corrie ten Boom, the famous Christian rescuer of Jews in Holland.) Burkle was a Lutheran and slavery profoundly troubled him. He left Germany to find freedom in America but here he encountered chattel slavery and it deeply distressed him enough to prompt him to break laws in order to rescue people. 

Rescuing slaves was not only risky business but costly. And of course Burkle broke the law, as I've already mentioned. Should Christians ever break the law? You bet they should. Should they have rescued slaves? You bet. Hindsight is 20-20 here, and I doubt I would have had Burkle's courage, but I can tell you that I am persuaded that he obeyed God, not man's foolish and desperately evil laws about slaves. 

This story raises a host of issues that most of us do not like to think about, much less draw definitive conclusions about what we should actually do. It is easy to admire Burkle in 2012 but what would you do? What about immigrants who are being harassed by unjust laws and their families torn apart in the middle of the night? What about the racism that is still impacting our country at so many (less obvious) levels? What about the life of the unborn or the rights of African-Americans, and the poor in general? And what about those who die in disproportionately large numbers through the legal abuse of capital punishment?

Christians then, and now, have used the Bible to defend all kinds of unjust practices and laws. If justice and mercy is our highest priority (Micah 6:8) then perhaps we should seriously question how we have reached some of our conclusions. Some of our conclusions (ethics) are based on an utter certitude that what we believe is clearly rooted in biblical texts. My Southern family believed this about slavery and was even willing to die for these "biblical convictions" even if they did not personally own slaves.

This question raises all manner of related questions about the claims of biblicism, the idea that the Bible speaks clearly and definitively to a whole host of questions that have clearly divided people of real Christian faith for centuries. (More on this problem of biblicism in later blogs!)

Burkle House provided unique insights into the secret activities of a German Christian who loved African slaves as brothers and sisters in Christ. Burkle was a Lutheran, like Bonhoeffer. Both men understood when to obey God and when to obey man. His life, and this antebellum home which has been open to the public as a museum since 1978, stands as a holy witness to the power of the gospel. If you get time in Memphis visit Burkle House at 826 N. Second Street. The Slave Haven web site is helpful.

For the record Wheaton College, my alma mater (B.A. '71 and M.A '73), began as an institution that actively supported abolition. Wheaton also supported the Underground Railroad. I am particularly pleased to know this history. I bless the life and memory of Jonathan Blanchard for his courage and leadership in founding a unique college on the prairie of Illinois. My life straddles both sides of this great American debate over slavery. I have a Freeman relative who fought for the Confederate States of America (CSA) in the Civil War. I am much more proud of my Armstrong family, and my Wheaton connection, at least on this count. 

Statement from the Annual Meeting of Christian Churches Together

February 17, 2012

One in Christ for the Sake of All

Representatives of the churches and organizations of Christian Churches Together in the United States assembled in Memphis, February 14-17, 2012, to respond to one question:

How might the Holy Spirit use the witness of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., and his Letter from the Birmingham Jail to help the church live the Gospel more fully and proclaim it more faithfully?

In our time together, our hearts and our minds have been engaged by Jesus’ announcement that:

The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me

to bring good news to the poor.

He has sent me to proclaim release to the captives

and recovery of sight to the blind, to let the oppressed go free,

to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor.’

Companions of Dr. King have shared with us their first-hand experience in the Civil Rights movement and of their continuing work. We reconnected with the story of the students on the Freedom Ride. We journeyed to Slave Haven Museum and confronted the national memory of the slave trade, the millions of Africans who lost their lives or their freedom in the forced journey from Africa to the New World. We visited the Lorraine Motel and the National Civil Rights Museum, coming face to face again with the things that necessitated the Civil Rights movement and the Poor People’s Campaign. We recognized our call to the “fierce urgency of now” that Dr. King named.

We declare unequivocally that racism, extreme wealth disparity, injustice and poverty, and violence are inextricably linked together. Dr. King said that “the giant triplets of racism, extreme materialism, and militarism are incapable of being conquered” when “profit motives and property rights are considered more important than people.” We call upon the church to say and act unambiguously for people. An anti-racist church advocates for equity, pursues justice and embodies non-violence. We know this. We have experienced the reality of God’s in-breaking kingdom in our relationships with each other. Gathered by the Spirit, as children of Our Father, in the name of Christ Jesus, we have known both truth and trust in the presence of each other. From the perspective of an outsider looking in on our gathering, we may seem like unlikely partners - Christians of African, European, Hispanic, Asian/Pacific, Native American, and Middle Eastern descent meeting in friendship; Evangelicals, Pentecostals, Catholics, Orthodox, Historic African American, and Historic Protestants exchanging ideas and living in mutual hope. We belong together. We have heard God’s “Yes” to our relationships and we say “Amen to the glory of God.”

Our gathering as Christian Churches Together is a joyful fellowship for which we give thanks and pray is pleasing to God, for in gathering together we experience Christ tearing down the walls that otherwise divide us.

With Dr. King, we affirm: "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly."

From our unity in Christ, we say to everyone in the United States that there is room for people from any land or language in this country. The color of one’s skin is a gift from God; to welcome the other is an act of our common humanity. The relationships that one has and the possibilities that one is extended are how we each realize what God promises for all. There are many ways in which our society limits the kinds of relationships people have and the possibilities for advancement people are given. We who met together in Memphis call upon the church to resist these socially imposed limits by engaging in new relationships with those who seem different and creating possibilities for people in poverty to acquire equity and experience economic security.

Our common humanity and our witness to the Christ of all peoples summons our churches to act for the wellbeing of all, to advocate for equity for the poor, to pursue justice, and to practice the love and nonviolence that Jesus teaches. Therefore we commend to our churches and organizations that they:

1. Examine their participation in the structures and personal choices that ignore the reality of poverty and perpetuate the effects of racism.

2. Embrace one or more of the initiatives from the CCT Statement on Poverty as a church wide priority which seek the elimination of poverty in this nation.

3. Partner with another church who is representative of being an "unlikely partner" in our anti-poverty work, so that our common witness may be to the God who reconciles us in Christ.

4. Proclaim publicly, in their own ways and in alliances of joint action, that the new forms of racist and unChristian behavior toward the immigrant, the impoverished and the non-Christian are abhorrent to God and a denial of the grace which God in Christ Jesus offers to everyone.

5. Seek ways to collaborate in their anti-racism and cross-cultural ministries and to share their resources and experiences in this work with each other and, as appropriate, with multi-religious partners.

6. Be mutually accountable to each other by regular reporting of their actions on these recommendations through a forum identified by Christian Churches Together.

7. Finally, working in collaboration through Christian Churches Together, develop an appropriate public witness and presence in Birmingham on April 16, 2013, to commemorate the 50th anniversary of The Letter from the Birmingham Jail and publicly report what the church is doing to overcome the sin of racism and to ensure economic “justice for all.”

For information contact:

Dick Hamm, Executive Director of CCT

[email protected]; 317-490-1968

 

Tri-Faith America

Kevin M. Schultz, assistant professor of history and Catholic studies at the University of Illinois at Chicago, demonstrates in his newly published study, Tri-Faith America (Oxford University Press, 2011), that the central drama of twentieth-century American religion was a tense, complex and successful course of change that ultimately led to mutual accommodation between America’s religious traditions.  Schultz follows the lead of Will Herberg (1901-1977) that was popularized in his famous book, Protestant, Catholic and Jew: An Essay in American Religious Sociology (1955). Herberg, who was brought up in a secular Jewish family and became a communist, eventually turned away from Marxism and became a religious conservative. During the 1960s Herberg became the religion editor of the National Review, the conservative magazine begun by William F., Buckley (1925-2008), a devout Catholics. (I prize a small signed photo of Buckley, taken with me outside Edman Chapel at Wheaton College, when we met at  a event to honor and study Malcolm Muggeridge.)

In Herberg’s most famous aforementioned work, Protestant, Catholic, Jew, he created a sociological framework for the study of religion in the United States by demonstrating how immigration and the resulting multi-ethnic culture of America were profoundly reflected in our religious movements and institutions. This thesis has stood the test of time and thus Herberg’s book is still very important for the study of the social impact of American religion in the twentieth century.

In Kevin Schultz’s new book he goes where Will Herberg did in his famous book but Schultz develops the Herberg thesis further. He does so with rich subtlety and profoundly engaging insight. He balances the achievements of our religious changes, with what he calls ‘tri-faith America,’ against its weaknesses and liabilities. This balanced perspective prompts Wilfred McClay, one of my favorite current religion writers, to say that Schultz has attained a balance that is rare, showing both the strengths and weaknesses of this new social arrangement.

If you’ve been awake you’ve surely noticed that the social and religious complexity of America has rather profoundly changed in a little more than one generation. The ways in which these changes have taken place are recognized by very few non-scholars, especially conservative Christians and ministers who continue to appeal to donors and listeners for a return to a culture that hasn’t exited for more than seventy-five year!  Sadly, the results of this continuing social shift are missed by most evangelical writers who address culture and religion in America. This leaves the rest of us unable to make sense of what is actually happening to our common social and religious life. Frequent appeals are thus made for “taking back America” or “changing our godless culture.” These have been a part of our steady diet since the 1970s. But too few have stopped to realize that these conservative appeals arose only a decade after the Civil Rights movement had reached its greatest achievements. Why? Is this all part of a larger story our Christian leaders have missed? I think so.

Kevin Schultz puts the history of American religion at the center of our political and social history and specifically shows the true origins of our American version of religious pluralism. America was a Protestant nation. Make no mistake about this historical truth. But this idea was clearly abandoned in the twentieth century. What replaced it was a new national image premised on the idea of three separate, equally American faiths—Protestantism, Catholicism and Judaism. By pressing their own versions of pluralism both Catholics and Jews changed everything from college fraternity life to our understanding of social etiquette, neighborhoods, the armed forces and what should or should not happen in public education. This altered our entire political and social landscape in ways that profoundly massively changed our lives by the early twenty-first century. These fundamental changes, according to Schultz, began in the early 1900s and led to the accomplishments of the Civil Rights movement in the 1960s.  Through these changes Catholics and Jews forced America to change by confronting the new reality of religious pluralism.

President Franklin D. Roosevelt put the real story of America bluntly, if privately, in 1942. The president noted that the United States was "a Protestant country and Catholics and Jews are here under sufferance." This is fact. Everything else is religious and social mythmaking done by people who have an agenda of some sort or another.

I give you one simple point to demonstrate my point. By the time the Religious Right arose in the 1970s conservatives like Jerry Falwell (1933-2007) were talking about a “moral majority.” This loose-knit coalition consisted of Protestants, Catholics and Jews. He spoke, as did others in the movement, of a Judeo-Christian America. What he, and almost all those in the movement, never told you was that a Judeo-Christian America was a myth in terms of our century-plus of history. There simply wasn’t a Judeo-Christian America until the rise of religious pluralism (brought about by immigration and massive social change) in the twentieth century. Falwell, and his friends and followers, urged us to take back the country of our forefathers but their appeal was not even remotely close to historical reality. The early twentieth century had already begun to see great change in American religion and the Religious Right seemed tone deaf and oblivious to this reality.

Tomorrow: Putting America’s Religious Change into Perspective

The Battle of Franklin

I recently spent some time in the Nashville (TN) area. I was about 15 minutes from Franklin, Tennessee. I had an appointment with a good friend in Franklin so I did some reading about the Civil War significance of this town. I was astounded by what I learned. I decided, after my brief research, to spend several hours visiting the Civil War sites. (I have visited more than a few Civil War battlefields and sites since I was trained in American history and retain a great interest in the subject.)

On November 30, 1864, the bloodiest and fiercest five-hour battle in the Civil War was fought in this town, which had only 750 residents at the time. In terms of the number engaged it was clearly the most destructive in the entire war. And of the five hours of combat more than four hours was fought in the dark of night, something that almost never happened. General Isaac R. Sherwood (111th Ohio Infantry) later wrote, “At midnight on the battlefield of Franklin, the finger of destiny was lifted pointing the open road to Appomattox” (meaning the end of the way a few months later).

Without providing a detailed sketch of this battle, which you can get on your own by research if you’re interested, the Battle of Franklin should never have happened. The Confederates (Army of Tennessee) brought 33,000 soldiers to fight in Tennessee. They wanted to liberate Nashville in order to break the supply lines of the Union Army. 22,000 of these men engaged in the Battle of Franklin. The Federal Army, which had literally snuck past the Confederates the evening before, was headed to Nashville to defend their stronghold. They dug in at Franklin because a bridge ahead of them was out so needed to wait in order to repair it. They numbered 23,000.

Late in the day of November 30, which was a bright and warm day of around 60 degrees, General John Bell Hood, decided to attack the Union Center about a mile or less south of Franklin where the troops were dug in with fortifications. Hood’s charge to the center of the Union line was a lot like Pickett’s famous charge at Gettysburg except it result in using more troops and even greater casualties. It was a brutal assault with very little chance of success. By the end of the battle five generals were dead and eight more wounded. Another was wounded and captured. I stood on the porch of the plantation home (photo below) where these five generals were laid on the morning of December 1, 1864. I walked in the fields of battle. I visited the cemetery where over 1,400 (only a portion) of the Confederate dead were buried. It all seemed surreal in a real sense. I simply cannot fathom these events with any degree of imagination that can do justice to the accounts I heard and the land and places I saw.

In the museum shop I looked over books and my eyes landed on one that interested me. It was an account of nine Confederate soldiers who were devoted Christians. Each explained their feelings and response to fighting in this bloody, terrible and tragic war. What interested me was the question each had to answer regarding why they felt they should fight in this war as a Christian. All nine had the same response to this question. First, they fought because their home land had been invaded. They believed their own state (Alabama, Tennessee, etc.) was their true homeland, not the union of the several states that made up the United States of America. Second, they all believed the Bible sanctioned slavery and it was just and right to die defending it. Most of those who died never owned a slave! They were too poor to own slaves. But they had been taught from childhood that slavery was biblical and they died believing this to be true.

I wondered deeply, as I walked across fields and into several homes that remain from this battle, “What do Christians believe today that is so deeply ingrained in them that it could cause them to fight and die for a cause that is neither worthy of their death or of a great bloody war?” Please never believe that how the Bible is used or interpreted makes no real difference. It did in 1864 and it still does today. The names and issues have changed but the dangers remain. Invoking the Scriptures in order to defend a war is always questionable business regardless of what theory of armed combat you endorse as a Christian.

My sunny, beautiful day in Franklin moved me to the depths of my being. It brought home the reality of how sincerely wrong some earnest Christians can be and what the cost will be in some instances. It also reminded me of how truly silly the nonsense is that we hear almost daily about how divided our nation is in 2011. We know nothing of the great divide of 1861-65 when we speak about our present struggles.

Could we have another American Civil War? Of course we could. I pray it never happens and one reason I write about peaceful and reasonable solutions to problems is to dampen down the enthusiasts who speak in apocalyptic terms about our present social and religious problems. The last I read the words of our Lord he said, “Blessed are the peacemakers” not “Blessed are those who are angry and want to take back their country for God!”

The Amazing Story of Congressman Bobby Rush

U. S. Congressman Bobby Lee Rush was born November 23, 1946 in Albany, Georgia, but grew up on Chicago’s North Side, where his mom was a Republican precinct captain. Today he is the U.S. Representative for Illinois' 1st congressional district. Rush worked as a medical clinic director during the early 1970s, and as an insurance agent in the late 70s and early 80s. In 1983 he was elected a Chicago City Alderman, and the following year became a second ward committeeman in Chicago. He began serving his congressional constituency in January, 1993, and is a member of the Democratic Party, the Progressive Caucus and the Congressional Black Caucus. His district is located principally on the South Side of Chicago and is a minority-majority district that has the highest percentage of African Americans (65%) of any congressional district in the nation. Bobby Rush has the distinction of being the only person, at least to date, to ever defeat President Barack Obama in an election for office. Obama challenged him in a primary election in 2000 and was defeated by the incumbent.

After watching the movie Night Catches Us (2010), a film which dramatically portrays the cultural and social impact of the Black Panthers in the late 1960s, I began to do some Internet reading about the Black Panther movement and its leaders. I was particularly interested in Bobby Seale, who was featured in a 20-minute interview in the features portion of Night Catches Us. By virtue of this wide-ranging search I came across Bobby Rush, himself a former Black Panther. Then as I read about Congressman Rush I came across this statement that amazed me:

On November 5, 2007, Rush proclaimed his support for National Bible Week, saying that he had not always been an ardent reader of the Bible, but after having been elected to the House, he received a copy in 1993 and that while in Chicago with his wife, he was drawn to read the Bible and is now a ferocious reader. He quoted Micah 6:6-8 and Luke 4:18. At the close of the speech, he called on Christians and non-Christians alike to read the Bible.

To say that I was interested in this account is an understatement. I looked up Rush’s speech in Congress and read the following from the Congressional Record entry of that date. (I have included the whole portion of the Congressional Record with no edits.)

NATIONAL BIBLE WEEK

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. RUSH) is recognized for 5 minutes.

Mr. RUSH. Mr. Speaker, on the week of November 18 we begin to celebrate in this Nation National Bible Week. National Bible Week is the National Bible Association’s signature event which is celebrated the week before Thanksgiving every year since it began in 1941.

In this week, we encourage the citizens of this Nation to read the Bible. Mr. Speaker, I must admit that I was not always an ardent Bible reader. I was always in and around the church, but as so many of us who belong to church, I was in the church, but church wasn’t in me. Mr. Speaker, I came to this Congress in 1993 and almost immediately upon my presence here I received a Bible similar to this given by Rev. Dr. D. James Kennedy. And, Mr. Speaker, I found my evenings alone, my wife and my family back in Chicago, and somehow I had a prompting to pick up the Bible and to read the Bible. I must admit, Mr. Speaker, that although I wasn’t an ardent reader, now I’m a ferocious reader of the Bible, avaricious in my interests in terms of the words recorded in God’s living book.

Mr. Speaker, I must say that I have been renewed as a man by the renewing of my mind according to the dictates and the Spirit that’s incorporated in the reading of the Bible. I am a changed man; I am a new man. I don’t have the same friends I used to have. I don’t walk the same way; I don’t talk the same way, and it’s all because of this Bible.

Mr. Speaker, I am an activist, and for years I had shunned this Bible because it didn’t speak to my activism. And then the Holy Spirit spoke to me through my conversations and through my interests in reading the Bible. And, Mr. Speaker, I came across a Scripture that really moved me, two, as a matter of fact. One is taken from the Old Testament, Micah 6:6–8: ‘‘With what shall I come before the Lord and bow myself before the high God? Shall I come before him with burnt offerings, with calves a year old? Will the Lord be pleased with thousands of ram, 10,000 rivers of oil? Shall I give my firstborn for my transgression, the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul?’’ The Lord answers, ‘‘He has shown you, O man, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? But to do justly, to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God.’’

Mr. Speaker, in those words, it encapsulated all that I had attempted to be, my activism, my love for humanity and my love for the Lord. Mr. Speaker, Luke 4 and 4:18: ‘‘The spirit of the Lord is upon Me. Because He has anointed me to preach the Gospel to the poor. He has sent me to heal the broken- hearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives and recovery of sight to the blind, to set at liberty those who are oppressed, to proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord.’’

Mr. Speaker, my life had been, and continues today, to be a reflection of the spirit that is within me, the Holy Spirit that is within me. I call on all good citizens, Christians and non- Christians alike, during this week and every week of the year, pick up your Bible. Read the Bible. You have no better friend. You have no better solution than what is recorded in these words.

All I could say when I read this was: “Wow!” Think about this for a brief moment. Rush was a Black Panther. D. James Kennedy gave him a Bible. I doubt Dr. Kennedy ever knew what that gift really did. And I doubt that he would have had much regard for Bobby Rush since his conversion to Christian faith because of Dr. Kennedy's well-known Christian Right stance. But his simple gift to Bobby Rush was used by the Holy Spirit to lead this man to embrace Christ as his Lord and Savior.

This led me to do some more reading about Bobby Rush. I discovered that after dropping out of high school he joined the U.S. Army in 1963 but then went AWOL. He received an honorable discharge in 1968. Throughout the 1960s Rush was involved in the civil-rights movement and worked in various civil-disobedience campaigns in the South. He then co-founded the Illinois chapter of the Black Panthers in 1968 and was its "defense minister.” In an interview with People magazine several years ago Rush said: "We needed to arm ourselves." He was actually present when fellow Black Panther Fred Hampton was killed in a Chicago police raid (I still recall the day this happened and the front-page news). Rush made an official statement that the police, whom he referred to as "pigs,” had murdered Hampton. Rush's own apartment was raided in December 1969. The police discovered an unregistered pistol, rifle, shotgun and pistol ammunition, various training manuals on explosives and booby traps, and a small amount of marijuana and an assortment of communist literature.

Rush was imprisoned for six months in 1972 on a weapons charge after carrying a gun into a police station. Nevertheless he worked on several non-violent projects that built support for the Black Panthers in African-American communities. He coordinated a medical clinic that offered sickle-cell anemia testing on an unprecedented scale. Rush also graduated with honors from Chicago's Roosevelt University in 1973. A year later he left the Panthers, who were already in decline. He humbly admitted to People, "We started glorifying thuggery and drugs.” This became distasteful to the deeply religious Rush, who said he was [now]a born-again Christian. He went on to say, "I don't repudiate any of my involvement in the Panther party—it was part of my maturing." He subsequently resumed his education in the early 1990s and entered McCormick Theological Seminary (PCUSA) where received a master's degree in theology.

It is safe to say that Bobby Rush is a political progressive, or liberal. During his congressional career he has voted:

• Against the development of a national missile defense system;
• Against the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2001;
• Against the post-9/11 anti-terrorism measure known as the Patriot Act;
• Against allowing the U.S. government to use electronic surveillance to investigate suspected terrorist operatives;
• Against a bill permitting the government to combat potential terrorist threats by monitoring foreign electronic communications which are routed through the United States;
• Against an October 2002 joint resolution authorizing U.S. military action in Iraq;
• Against the establishment of military commissions to try enemy combatants captured in the war on terror;
• In favor of withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq immediately and by a preordained date;
• Against President Bush's 2007 decision to deploy some 21,500 additional U.S. soldiers in an effort to quell the violent insurgents in Iraq;
• In favor of a proposal to expedite the transfer of all prisoners in the Guantanamo Bay detention center;
• Against requiring hospitals to report (to the federal government) illegal aliens who receive emergency medical treatment;
• Against the Real ID Act, which proposed to set minimal security requirements for state driver licenses and identification cards;
• Against separate proposals calling for the construction of some 700 miles of fencing to prevent illegal immigration along America's southern border;
• Against a proposal to grant state and local officials the authority to investigate, identify, and arrest illegal immigrants;
• Against major tax cut proposals in September 1998, February 2000, March 2000, July 2000, May 2001, May 2003, October 2004, and May 2006;
• Against separate welfare reform bills designed to move people off the welfare rolls and into paying jobs;
• In favor of prohibiting oil and gas exploration in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR); and
• Against a proposal to fund offshore oil exploration along the Outer Continental Shelf.

I list these votes to give you an idea of the political perspective of Congressman Bobby Rush. I agree with some of his positions and strongly disagree with others.

My primary reason for listing his votes on various issues, and telling his story in the first place, has nothing to do with politics per se. My purpose is missional. My purpose is related to the grace of God in transforming people’s lives through the Word of God. I found this story amazing and encouraging. I realized, once again, that you cannot fit the followers of Jesus neatly into a political box and say, “This is the position that defines what a real Christian will do politically.” I simply did not know anything about the personal story of Bobby Rush other than the Black Panther part of this past life. I find this story faith-building and encouraging beyond words.

I also found it a little more than ironic that the late D. James Kennedy gave a Bible to Congressman Rush and this gift became the instrument that God used to open his life to the good news. I wonder if we might all learn something very basic and important about the kingdom of God from this story. I did. I will pray for you, Congressman Rush, my brother whenever I hear your name in the future. May God bless you and may your life bear good fruit in every way.

The Help

Rarely do my wife and I enjoy the same movie and see it in the theater. This, in itself, says a lot about what we both thought about the hot new movie, The Help. In fact, Anita is reading the novel now that we saw the movie.

The Help looks at three very different, extraordinary women in Jackson, Mississippi during the early 1960s, who build an unlikely friendship around a secret writing project that breaks societal rules and puts them all at risk. From their improbable alliance a remarkable sisterhood emerges, a bond between black and white where it was not permitted, instilling in all three women the courage to transcend the lines that define them, and the realization that sometimes those lines are made to be crossed – even if it means bringing everyone in town face-to-face with the changing times.

What typically drives a story’s narrative is conflict. In a visual medium like film, conflict is generally external, often even excessive. Film critic Burl Burlingame understands this aspect of film, and this film in particular, when he writes: “If the conflict mirrors what lies beneath, or is used as a metaphor, so much the better, but conflict in films is usually amped up for its own effect. When Hollywood makes movies about race relations in the American south, you can count on lynching's and things blowing up and fires and people screaming and bloody murders, plus nobly suffering black people, crazily racist white people and sensitive government agents from outside the south as our tour guides in this vicious landscape.”

Having lived in the deep South in this era, as a teenager, I concur with Burlingame’s insightful comment. This is not to say that the really bad stuff didn’t happen. It is to say that institutionalized racism is more poisonous than the terrible stuff I never saw in my day-to-day life in the Old South. Racism infected every aspect of my everyday life and that of my peers. Like a virus it grew and impacted everything about all of us over time. “The Help” understands this subtlety and presents the problems of the time in a fresh, helpful and moving way.

I believe The Help will receive some serious film awards, including Academy nominations. Many critics believe that this is the sort of film that Oscar loves to promote — a Southern gothic comedy-drama with wickedly observed performances and a story arc that feels absolutely epic, despite the modest, domestic setting.

When I saw The Help I felt like I was living on Westwood Drive in Lebanon, Tennessee, in the 1950s and 60s. I knew women just like the characters in The Help. My father, the most non-racist white man I knew, was summoned during the night to remove a tooth from a maid who worked in another dentist’s home across the street from our home. My father was the only dentist in the county who took the risk of serving black patients and it cost him both financially and socially. I didn’t understand that at the time but some years later I began to realize that my dad was one of the most unusual and courageous white professionals I had ever known. (I said as much when I preached at his funeral.) While my parents were not Civil Rights activists, they taught me the futility and moral deficiency of racism again and again. I grew up with friends who were black and actually saw no differences except for those my white peers insisted upon in private. What I learned, but did not understand as a teen, was that racism truly begins to evaporate when others are no longer seen as “others.”

This marvelous film belongs to women, some well known and some relative newcomers to the big screen. It’s clearly one of the best movies of the year, at least so far. As Burlingame said in his review, “It is Hollywood revving on all cylinders. It’s intelligent without being condescending; evocative of a time and place that exists in the past and lingers in the heart.” Amen.

The Marriage Pool

The Economist recently reflected on the “skewed sex ratio” that often results in there being more women who desire marriage than available men. The exact opposite problem exists in China where girls are more often aborted. Research shows that most people marry someone of the same race who lives relatively close to them. If this is true then what is happening in the African-American community in America is an incredibly complicated social problem with massive implications.

One in nine black males between 20-29 years of age are behind bars. Add to this men who have been imprisoned and are now free and the number is much higher. Not only are incarcerated men not able to marry but ex-cons rarely make it in marriage either. Removing so many men from the marriage pool thus has enormous implications.

The Economist asks, “Could it be . . .  that mass incarceration is a symptom of increasing social dysfunction, and that it was this social dysfunction that caused marriage to wither?” The magazine says, “Probably not.” One study concludes that a higher male imprisonment has lowered the likelihood that women will marry and thus caused a great shift away from women towards men in marriage.

One obvious response to this social dysfunction lies in the power of the church, especially in the black population centers, to “be the church.” Community will provide real life solutions to such problems. A good starting point for those of us who are white would be to actually get to know our neighbors who may not live next door to us. Sometimes these neighbors live a lot closer to us than we know but we have not cared all that much to find out.

Whose Gospel? An Argument for Progressive Christianity

Dr. James A. Forbes, Jr. is the founder and president of the Healing of the Nations Foundation and the senior minister emeritus of the famous Riverside Church in New York City. He was also a professor at Union Theological Seminary and has hosted The Time Is Now on Air America Radio. Forbes is a social and political liberal who preaches faith in Jesus with great passion. I have never heard him speak in person but I have heard CDs of his preaching. I can testify to his incredible story-telling ability. I happen to like Forbes and would happily sit down with him for a cup of coffee or a meal. We would have some interesting disagreements but on much we would find common ground. Newsweek calls Forbes “one of the twelve most effective preachers in the English-speaking world.”

James Forbes has long been a strong voice for civil rights. He even gave a stirring address to the 2004 Democratic National Convention. He served as pastor of the well-known Riverside Church for eighteen years. His insights about pastoral ministry, teaching and mentoring are often brilliant and his judgment is seasoned and prudent. But Forbes is an honest-to-goodness liberal Christian and makes no effort to defend the kind of conservatism that many readers of this blog embrace. So why do I tell you this about James A. Forbes, Jr.?

Browsing in my public library a few weeks ago I came across Forbes’ newest book: Whose Gospel? A Concise Guide to Progressive Protestantism (New York: The New Press, 2010). I read the book with real interest and found much to like about it. I also found a great deal to disagree with for reasons rooted in how I read Scripture and the Christian tradition, both of which are at the core of my mission.

First, the parts of Forbes’ book that I do not like. Forbes allows Scripture to have a clear role in shaping both faith and moral response. But he allows cultural controversies and social opinions to hold an even greater role in his ultimate conclusions about what the Scripture says regarding controversial moral debates; e.g. sexuality, war, ecology and economics. His views on these issues sound more like the views of the Democratic Party than anything one could get from careful exegetical biblical study. In fact, careful exegesis is not the strong and clear basis for much of what Forbes concludes regarding the gospel of progressive Christianity. This, it seems to me, is the real underlying problem in progressive/liberal Christianity. The debate has always been, and still remains, about Scripture and what constitutes normative confessional tradition. Is the Bible simply an ancient book that gives us stories that we are fairly free to change (reinterpret) regarding doctrinal/moral conclusions? As we “progress” into new discoveries in science, sociology and sexuality can we use these discoveries to change revealed moral norms?

Forbes takes a clear stand on homosexuality that will please those who sincerely believe the Scripture has not definitively spoken on this point. Like all who take a progressive view here Forbes believes the church changed its view of women and slavery thus really important “rights” issue today should bring about more changes in the Christian response to this ongoing modern debate. He is partly right. Christians who believe that Scripture does speak clearly about sexual morality (adultery, fornication, homosexual practice, etc.) could learn something important from hearing what he says here but in the end they will not be unlikely to reach the same conclusion.

Second, there are parts of Forbes’ stance that I do like very much. He takes a dim view of most wars and presents some rather compelling arguments for how he reached his conclusion. He argues that we should always cultivate “prophetic patriotism” if we are Christians. I have come to love that phrase and will use it. I want to be a “prophetic patriot.” He tells how The Riverside Church has handled the issue of peace while they have also faithfully served military personnel over the years. The balance here is intriguing and one that I think useful to both sides in this debate. The Riverside Church has taught pacifism but nurtured the life of soldiers with dignity and grace. Forbes carried on this tradition.

Forbes frames his own pastoral ministry in terms of healing. He writes about his relationship with charismatic healers, naming Katherine Kuhlman as “a woman with extraordinary spiritual gifts” whom he met and prayed with personally. When she prayed over him he experienced power that he believes came from God. During one of Forbes’ sermons, in this same time period, God touched a man by granting him his hearing. Forbes wrestled with this demonstration of power but in time concluded that his own call to healing had more to do with relationships than physical miracles. Again, this is one of the most appealing parts of his story. It transcends liberal and conservative debates because it is so obviously central to the core teaching of the New Testament.

Here are a few vintage Forbes quotes:

Jesus was progressive. He was open to having his understanding of both truth and love broadened. In Luke 2:52, we read, “And Jesus increased in wisdom and in years, and in divine and human favor.” Much later, we find Jesus’ own well-formulated religious viewpoint changed by a Syropheonician woman who challenged Him after he first refused to help her daughter (Mark 7:24-30).

We all need healing and wholeness. We need to progress as individuals and as communities out of the brokenness, fragmentation, destruction, and disease in our lives and in our world. We are not on this journey alone (2-3).

Forbes doesn’t want us to think that his progressive views regarding the application of the faith mean that he believes Jesus is one with his complete understanding of all these various issues. Yet his progressive Jesus is treated as the real Jesus that we encounter in Scripture. I find this claim slightly disingenuous. My problem is simple: Jesus was not a liberal, a progressive, a conservative or a libertarian. He was/is Lord of heaven and earth. These terms that we use to address difficult modern (political and social) issues just do not fit the New Testament that easily. I think Forbes would have to agree if we were drinking our coffee together and not defending our stance on a particular issue.

This leads to the most positive chapter in the book, which ironically is also the most negative one at the same time. I refer to the chapter on sexuality. It is filled with great insights, wisdom and grace. Most conservative Christians would learn a lot about how their understanding of sexuality is defective by reading a book like this one. Forbes argues for a mature, humane understanding of the power and place of human sexuality. But, and this is extremely important, he fails to define or defend anything remotely like a moral law in terms of the right and wrong context for God-honoring sexual expression. Unsurprisingly his moral understanding is thus powerfully shaped by the present-day debates, not by the Bible or the Christian tradition.

Here is one illustration of my point. When Forbes deals with war he uses the Ten Commandments as the grid to explain why each commandment is actually broken by war. (I do not agree with his progressive pacifism but I do think far too many Christians see war as a solution without admitting that it always contains consequences, unintended and otherwise, that break down society in numerous ways.) The point here is that Forbes appeals to the Ten Commandments as abiding moral law rooted in God’s revealed character. But when he comes to sexual practice the law is seen as irrelevant to his stance. It seems obvious that you can’t have your cake and ice cream in this case. The law does apply to moral reasoning and decision making or it does not. Forbes conclusions about sexual practice are thus unreasonable and lack careful biblical nuance regarding the text.

So what do I do with a book like this one? I read it in order listen and learn. I read it to hear a great preacher speak out of his lifelong experience and his treatment of modern concerns. I read it knowing the author as one who has shown real love for Christ and people. But I read it impressed that the gospel can never be limited to the ideology of the left or the right. Forbes disappoints me, in the end, as much as many on the right disappoint me. They describe the elephant as if they were wearing a blindfold and had felt a few parts and thus understood the whole. But then conservatives often do the same thing. Maybe reading Forbes reminded me of the very blind spot that I have. I hope so.

Finally, here are a few final observations from Forbes that I found immensely insightful:

At the heart of our faith is “radical relationality” (150). Such people have a rectifying and reconciling spirit (150). Our advanced technology brings with it an increased responsibility to study as best we can the effects of the actions we take and the innovations that we call progress.

We need a paradigm shift from adversarial and exploitative relationships with our environment to a respectful and mutually regarding care for one another. “Learning to love our neighbors in the whole ecosystem is the order of the day” (151).

Some years ago I walked into the office of a well-known evangelical pastor/author who was reading a book that frankly shocked me. I asked him why he was reading this book when I knew he would clearly disagree with it. His answer has influenced me for more than thirty-five years. “Why should I read a book that I already know I agree with when I can learn from someone I am quite sure will say things very differently?”

Christian Community Development is a Kingdom Priority

Christians in America have far too little interest in  economic and community development. We have generally argued that our mission is spiritual and the saving of communities is not our concern. I personally cared next to nothing about community development until I got to know my good friend John Perkins (photo left). An evening with John in my home, some years back, was memorable and life transforming. But even before I got to know John as a friend, and visited his work in Jackson, Mississippi, I was touched by the story of Wayne Gordon (photo right), a Wheaton College peer who launched a major effort for community development in Lawndale, a West Side neighborhood in Chicago known for poverty and violence. John Perkins and Wayne Gordon are my heroes, my role models, in showing me how the gospel is relevant to community and economic development. They did this not so much by what they said as by what they did, that is by how they put their Christian belief into action.

A young friend in California, who shares this economic and community development perspective with me, recently sent me a link to a moving story about a nearby Chicago suburb where a banker made a huge difference. This Chicago area banker had compassion for the community that was right next door to his much more affluent suburb. This led him to use his considerable skills in banking to make a real difference in Maywood, Illinois, a town of small homes built for factory works in another era. Today Maywood is mostly African-American and has been since the 1970s, just shortly after I came to this area in my late teens. I now live about twelve miles west of Maywood but it might as well be a thousand miles. “Out of sight, out of mind,” the saying goes. The problem is that I pass by Maywood on my way into Chicago, just glancing at it as the freeway cuts right across the town. This story reveals why the federal government has taken an approach to saving big banks that is desperately flawed. It should make you angry if you are committed to kingdom values. It did me.

Look, this is not a politically partisan issue. Both parties have clearly failed when it comes to a story like this one. And this story reminds us that churches do play a very human role in the actual well-being of their neighborhoods. They can help save neighborhoods in ways that go far beyond a purely spiritual mission. This, to me, is clearly a faith-works issue; cf. James 2:14–26; 5:1–6.

I am of the persuasion that partisan political involvement by the church is generally counterproductive. It warps a church’s mission and turns the election of “our kind of candidates” into the mission of the gospel. This is why I find the frequent “voter’s guides” the Christian Right distributes so offensive. But when and where the church must speak is when the whole system is plainly broken by systemic sin and justice and mercy compel us to speak and act. The churches, and their leaders, in suburban Maywood have much to teach all of us. The banker in this story is a role model for Christian bankers. When I read this story I was moved to weep for God’s people and their failure to express their energy in real works of mercy and compassion that have political overtones of the sort that do not fit into party politics. I fear that we are so rooted in our own consumerism, and the lifestyle that goes with it, that we cannot see what is actually happening to many neighborhoods. If we cannot see then it is unlikely that we will care. Maybe this story will help some to see and to grasp why the church cannot avoid politics in the best sense of the word.