The Not So Common Faith Practice

8/7/2019 The Not So Common Faith Practice

1/25

The Not So Common Faith Practice:Pursuing JusticeRev. Chuck Bentjen, J.D.

1

We also are a people compelled by justice. Jesus called justice one of the weightier matters ofthe law, too often neglected by religiouspeople (Matthew 23:23). Our search for

justice is a call from God, a concernespecially for the rights of the needy(Jeremiah 5:28). A Social Statement onHealth Care: Our Shared Endeavor

He has told you, O Mortal, what is good;and what does the Lord require of you but

to do justice, to love kindness, and to walkhumbly with your God? Micah 6:8


2/25

Introduction

This paper is written in response to more than four years of visioning, research, discussion andplanning for mission by and among the members of the Justice Ministries Committee of theNebraska Synod of the ELCA and others through both formal and informal processes. I offer it in

celebration of the more than 20 years of work done by Justice and Advocacy Ministries2

in Nebraskaand with the recognition that we are called to be faithful and yet changing. Consistent with thatunderstanding I acknowledge this is an ongoing process that requires continued honest reflectionand development.

It is further developed in response to the Design for Mission through the Churchwide Organization ofthe Evangelical Lutheran Church in America. In particular it is developed in response to a sinceredesire and commitment to be an effective instrument of a church that steps forward as a publicchurch that witnesses boldly to all that God has created, seeking to promote justice, peace, and thecare of the earth.

I feel a strong calling to raise my voice. Though I do my best to justify my thoughts, positions andconclusions in this paper, Im confident there are parts in which I may sound overly critical of thechurch or parts of it. Thats not my intent. Nonetheless, in my many years of learning what it meansto raise my voice, Ive discovered that doing so often comes with a price. So to be perfectly honest,Id prefer not to, but . . .

About the Title

Ive been uncertain about where to put an explanation of the title to this paper. I began thinking anendnote would be a good place for such information. But I think the explanation is so critical tounderstanding the basic premise from which I am writing that it warrants space at the beginning.

Im on a lifelong personal quest to answer the question, What does it mean to live out ones faith?Somewhere along the road, I paused and reflected on some materials offered by my church, theELCA. I found those materials at http://archive.elca.org/init/teachthefaith/7practices.html. Thosematerials tell me:

Followers of Jesus are inspired to develop practices and patterns for living that characterize a lifethat is devoted to daily discipleship. Seven common practices have been identified as key to modeland nurture. The materials list those seven common practices as: Prayer, Study, Worship,Invitation, Encouragement, and Service.

As I do with most things, I pondered that statement for a while before I simply jumped into adopting

those practices and patterns as the definitive answer. Certainly, I cannot argue with any of thosepractices and patterns and believe they are of great value to living out ones call to discipleship. Butit seems to me there are some key faith practices missing from the list.

During my time of reflection (which, by the way, is ongoing), I also re-discovered the BaptismalCovenant. That covenant, recited by all ELCA Confirmands in the celebration of their Affirmation ofBaptism, provides: You have made public profession of your faith. Do you intend to continue in thecovenant God made with you in Holy Baptism:


3/25

To live among Gods faithful people,

To share in Gods Word and supper

To proclaim the good news of God in Christ through word and deed,

To serve all people, following the example of our Lord Jesus,

And to strive for justice and peace in all the earth?

But I did not connect or even compare the seven common faith practices to the Baptismal Covenant.That all changed at a conference in which I was participating related to justice and health care.During one of the discussions, I heard someone argue that pursuing justice is not one of the sevencommon faith practices. Without thought I heard myself responding, But what about the BaptismalCovenant? The other person, a faithful church person, leader and the son of a pastor, was notfamiliar with the Baptismal Covenant. It intrigued me that my friend could recite the seven commonfaith practices but claimed he had never heard of the Baptismal Covenant. So I started examiningthe two a little more closely. Then some other things happened that stirred my thinking.

First, I presented a workshop on Gods call to do and seek justice at a meeting of the Women of theELCA in Nebraska. The meeting started with worship. In his message, the Pastor talked about the

seven common faith practices. I found myself wondering about the same question I had raised atthe earlier conference: But what about the Baptismal Covenant?

Second, I read three marvelous books at the same time (I often read more than one book at a time a bad habit). The first was Freakonomics: A Rogue Economist Explores the Hidden Side ofEverythingby Steven D. Levitt and Stephen J. Dubner. One of the things I discovered through thiswork is that if we look closely enough, we can see cause and effect dependencies between thingsthat otherwise do not appear to be even remotely connected. The second book was Manna andMercy: Gods Unfolding Promise to Mend the Entire Universe by Rev. Daniel J. Erlander. In thatwork I was particularly drawn to a new insight on humankinds almost unquenchable desire to hoardmanna and forsake mercy to the detriment of all Gods creation. The third book was actually a re-

read ofThe Cost of Discipleship by Dietrich Bonhoeffer. During this particular reading of that book, Iconcentrated on the Baptismal Covenant, Erlanders work and Gods call to seek and do justice.

As a result I began to see more clearly some cause and effect connections between the way we liveout our lives in the name of Christ and poverty, genocide, war, hunger, disease and even naturaldisasters or at least our responses to them. While I see a fair amount of charity, I see little justice. Infact, in many cases I see the opposite injustice being perpetrated by pubic policies hailed to bebased on Judeo-Christian values.3 How does that happen? Does not God, through the prophetMicah, tell us to do justice, love mercy and walk humbly with God? What are we missing?

With the exception of prayer, none of the seven common faith practices lifted up by the church

relate to the baptismal promise to strive for justice and peace in all the earth. One might argue thatencourage and serve come close, but they are woefully incomplete.

So what does that tell us if anything? It might tell us that we, as a church, have not focused muchtime, energy or many resources on defining what it means to strive for justice and peace in all theearth. It might say that we are so uncomfortable with justice and peace that we avoid evendiscussing it. But I believe it primarily says that pursuing justice and peace is not, as Martin Lutherwould put it, a habit of the heart. In other words pursuing justice and peace is not organic to ourlives as members of the church.4 Thus, while striving for justice and peace is something we affirm

2


4/25

we will do as baptized children of God, we just dont seem to give what it means to do that muchthought. It is not that we do not want to strive for justice and peace or, even at times, work hard at it.So, I cannot say striving for justice and peace is not a faith practice of the church or members of it.But, without question, the practice simply is not part of our culture as the body of Christ known asLutheran Christians. I argue that not only should it be common, it should be so common that ithappens without thought. Hopefully, this effort will plant some seeds on good soil.

Chuck Bentjen

Gods Call to Seek and Do Justice

The call to seek and do justice is grounded in baptism and expressed in the covenant God makeswith us in holy baptism to strive for justice and peace in all the earth.5 At first blush that seems sobasic to our way of life as Americans that we might not even consider it necessary to raise Luthersoft repeated phrase, and what does this mean for us. The political socialization process in theUnited States teaches us that we are a nation that promotes liberty and justice for all. In fact thoseconcepts are so important to us they are codified in various places in our nations Constitution and

Bill of Rights and branded in our hearts through ritual recitations of such things as the pledge ofallegiance to the flag and the song God Bless America. Indeed, many Americans defend theconcept of this linkage between God and country with intense fervor.

Many argue, therefore, that Americans are born into a society steeped in an ongoing pursuit ofjustice. But is the American understanding of justice for all the same as Gods call to seek and dojustice? Arguably, at least, most Americans, including Lutheran Christians, simply assume that to bethe case and do not give the question much thought. Such assumptions are incredibly dangerousbecause they easily lead us down a slippery slope to civil religion and worship of state. The lateRowland Sherrill, former chair of the Religious Studies Department at Indiana University, Purdue,Indianapolis, discussed American civil religion in a FAC Conference on September 23, 2002. He

said,

6

American civil religion is a form of devotion, outlook and commitment that deeply andwidely binds the citizens of the nation together with ideas they possess and expressabout the sacred nature, the sacred ideals, the sacred character, and sacredmeanings of their country. . . There is a religious aura and coloration in the ways manyAmericans think about, live within and operate in relation to their ideas of their countryas sacred entity. People believe the country has been specially blessed by God, andthat means they, the Americans, have been blessed. America and Americans,therefore, have a special place and role in the world and in human history.

Comparisons between the American civil religion Sherrill described in his speech and the civilreligion to which the prophet Amos spoke should quickly come to mind. If they do not, they will asone reads the first paragraph to the introduction to the Book of Amos in the New Oxford AnnotatedBible, NSRV:7

3


5/25

During the long and peaceful reign of Jeroboam II (786-746 BC) Israel attained aheight of . . . national prosperity never again reached. The military security andeconomic affluence which characterized this age were taken by many Israelites assigns of the Lords special favor that they felt they deserved because of theirextravagant support of the official shrines.

With that in mind we can then dig into and digest Amos words. Visualize the scene in which Amosdelivers his opening remarks to the people of Israel. He begins his speech very cleverly by pointingout the transgressions of the people of the lands surrounding Israel. One can see the people puffingup with pride and vigorously nodding their heads in agreement. Then he delivers the fatal blow.8

6Thus says the Lord: For three transgressions of Israel, and for four, I will not revokethe punishment; because they sell the righteous for silver, and the needy for a pair ofsandals 7they who trample the head of the poor into the dust of the earth, and pushthe afflicted out of the way; father and son go in to the same girl, so that my holy nameis profaned; 8they lay themselves down beside every altar on garments taken inpledge; and in the house of their God they drink wine bought with fines they imposed.

Now one sees a much different reaction. Suddenly the agreement turns to disgust and disdain asthe people ask, How could anyone make such ridiculous claims against Israel? We are special toGod. We are on Godsside. But, despite the probable laughter, scorn, ridicule and hostility fromthe people, Amos continues his dialectic on Gods behalf:9

I hate, I despise your festivals,

and I take no delight in your solemn assemblies.22 Even though you offer me your burnt offerings and grain offerings,

I will not accept them;and the offerings of well-being of your fatted animals

I will not look upon.23 Take away from me the noise of your songs;

I will not listen to the melody of your harps.24 But let justice roll down like waters,

and righteousness like an ever-flowing stream.

While one can and should debate my insinuation that American civil religion is comparable to the civilreligion of Israel to which Amos spoke, there are clear correlations between the economic inequitiesand religious pride Amos addressed and the economic inequities and religious pride that currentlyexist in the United States. In his marvelous work, Manna and Mercy, A Brief History of GodsUnfolding Promise to Mend the Entire Universe Rev. Daniel Erlander explains the political, economicand religious conditions of Amos time. They sound remarkably similar to the political, economic andreligious conditions of our time. He writes:10

4


6/25

The people . . . left their true partner and leader, the liberator God, and worshippedtheir manna piles . . . More and more the rich exploited the poor, practicing neitherrighteousness nor mercy. By bribery and cheating the rich added house to house andfield to field. They even began to think they earned and deserved and owned theirland and riches . . . The majority spent their days grabbing, securing, and protecting

their manna piles. The land was filled with avarice, distrust, loneliness, alienation andcovetousness. Some had too much; some had too little and the society smelled foul.Did they continue to worship Yahweh? They certainly did . . . but they did not worshipto incorporate themselves into the life of the liberator God. Instead, the performedcorrect religious actions as a way of manipulating the deity into sending good fortune.Yahweh cried out, Your religious rituals make me sick!

Amazingly even those who seem to be most negatively affected by current economic and publicpolicies in the United States seem to believe that they should support those public policies as an actof faith. (See e.g., Whats the Matter with Kansas,11) It seems Americans are convinced they shouldvote contrary to their own interests based on the growth of a civil religion that focuses on what lawprofessor and theologian Susan Pace Hamill identifies as a low-sacrifice operation.12 She writes:

Given that nearly eighty percent of Americans claim to adhere to Christianity orJudaism in some form, why is our tax policy at both the national and state levelscontinue to move further away from reflecting genuine Judeo-Christian values? Thescarcity of faith-based ethical reflection in justice concerns, which includes tax policy,is a symptom that religion as a viable and authentic conviction with a principled moralcompass is in deep troublethe practice of Christianity in particular has become a low-sacrifice operation. What passes for faith-based ethics, beyond matters of personalpiety, has become centered on a few highly emotional and theologically divisive issues

that for most people involve little or no direct personal sacrifice. Although these issuesraise significant theological concerns where reasonable people of faith can, and do,passionately disagree, elevating these issues to be of supreme importance whileignoring the high degree of sacrifice required by the clear biblical mandates of justiceperverts faith into a meaningless and hollow ritual.13

Let us examine Professor Hamills analysis a little more deeply. To do that well take a hot-buttonphrase: one nation, under God, with liberty and justice for all. Whether that phrase should beincluded in the pledge of allegiance to flag of the United States raises profound emotions amongAmericans. Atheists argue that including the phrase violates the First Amendments guarantee thatthe state will not establish a state religion. Many if not a majority of Christian Americans adamantly

argue that excluding the phrase is leading the United States further and further down a path awayfrom God.

But lets raise Professor Hamills question: whats at stake personal piety or direct personalsacrifice. In either case does including or excluding the phrase cost anyone anything other thanadvancing the piety of their particular belief system? If the atheists lose this battle does it reallymean a state established religion? If the Christians lose it is there any personal loss or sacrifice, e.g., will the ability to share their message be lost? Will the outcome of the debate cost anyone theirlife or their religious freedom? Clearly not. And yet such pursuits consume not only a great deal of

5


7/25

time and emotion among those raising the issues, but they also consume a lot of valuable officialtime, energy and emotion that could be used in the pursuit of those things that would truly make us anation under God with liberty and justice for all.

So if the late Professor Sherrill, Reverend Erlander, Mr. Frank, and Professor Hamill are correct intheir analyses that the American understanding of justice for all and Gods call through thebaptismal covenant to strive for justice and peace in all the world, are not inherently synonymous,we must indeed ask that very Lutheran question about Gods call to seek and do justice, and whatdoes this mean for us.

Defining Justice

We can begin our effort to answer that question by attempting to define the word justice using Judeo-Christian values. This is difficult because it not only involves deeply intense spiritual, philosophical,theological, and sometimes painful self examination; it also requires us to enter into potentiallyadversarial, conflicting and divisive dialogue something we seem to want to avoid in church.Further, it requires us to wrestle with such topics as tax policy, economic theory, environmentalissues, race, ethnicity, prosperity, poverty, morality, political freedom, rights, responsibilities, and

theological differences among others.

Rev. George S. Johnson offers a marvelously concise and easy to read yet profound Christianunderstanding of justice in his book Beyond Guilt: Christian Response to Human Suffering. Likemany faithful people, Johnson recognized his call to ordained ministry at a relatively young age. Heattended seminary, was ordained and called to serve as a pastor. Like most pastors, Rev. Johnsonwas certainly aware of Gods call through the baptismal covenant to strive for justice and peacethrough all the earth. But he never gave that call much thought.

All of that changed when Rev. Johnson returned to the School of Theology in Claremont, Californiafor some graduate studies. During one term, Rev. Johnson was limited in his course options. Much

to his chagrin he ended up in a class on hunger and the Christian response. He was not happy to bethere. He was a busy man a successful pastor. But as Johnson had done all of his life he allowedGod to speak to him through the experience and he listened. The course ended up shaping his callsuch that striving for justice and peace throughout all the earth became and remains the primaryfocus of not only his ministry but his entire life.

Through his book, Johnson offers an insightful and easily understood explanation of the complexitiesof what it means to strive for justice and peace in all the earth. With each passing chapter Johnsoncarefully takes the reader on a journey from where a majority of us are in our understanding to awhole new place and beyond. For example under the heading Discipleship and CelebrationJohnson moves us from struggle to celebration, from believing to following, from silence to speech,

from priest to priesthood, from urgency to patience and from weeping to singing.While the entire book is commendable, the section called Reflection and Discovery is the mostimportant for the purposes of this paper. Johnson begins the section with a chapter called, FromCharity to Justice. He opens the chapter with a beautiful story about his teenage daughter duringthe 1960s. Rev. Johnson and his wife delayed purchasing a color TV. They finally decided to takethe plunge and set aside the money to do so. Johnson writes: 14

6


8/25

Then one morning our oldest daughter came down for breakfast and said, Why dontwe take the money for our color TV and give it to our churchs hunger appeal instead.I was pleasantly surprised, almost blown away. After carefully asking some questionsto find out where the change of attitude came from, I discovered that the night beforeshe had watched a TV program put on by World Vision. Seeing children suffer and die

for lack of nourishment moved her to tears and she wanted to do something about it.Whenever the hunger crisis gets the attention of the media, offerings go up. Peoplewant to help.

So far, theres nothing offered to give anyone any new insight. A young woman saw the effects of hunger andwanted to help. But Johnson continues, Of course, I wanted to affirm our daughters desire to give some moneyto the hunger appeal; what I found challenging was to help her move from charity to justice, prophetic justice.15

So whats the difference? Johnson explains: 16

There is a saying that helps to explain this challenge to work for justice, not just forcharity. It goes like this: If people are hungry you can give them some fish and they

will live another day. Its called relief. But if you not only give a fish, but teach themhow to fish for themselves they will be helped to feed themselves in the future. This isoften called development. That sounds good but it can be misleading if it is notfollowed with the next step. There is a third part of that saying that is critical to ourefforts to move beyond guilt. We must not only offer the fish (relief) and assistance inknowing how to fish themselves (development), but we must move over in the pondand give them a place to fish.

But what does it mean to move over in the pond and give them a place to fish? Lets take a carefullook at an example. In the example, well call the pond Wealth, and the community surrounding it,

Wealthtown. In Wealth we find all of the resources available to Wealthtown and the surroundingcommunity as a whole. Lets assume 95% of Wealth is owned, managed and fished by about threepercent of citizens of the community. The remaining five percent is owned by people of moderate ormiddle income, approximately 77% of the total population. The rest of the people have no place ator access to Wealth. They must buy, beg for, borrow17 or steal their fish from those who own,manage and fish the pond. They have little or no say in how Wealth is managed yet they must sharein the consequences if the pond is mismanaged, polluted or depleted. The consequences ofmismanagement, pollution, or depletion, however, are more costly for them because they are muchless likely to have access to the resources necessary to deal with the consequences ofmismanagement than are those who caused the problems in the first place.

Now lets apply our Lutheran understanding of sin to the model. We can assume some of the peoplewho control the resources are most willing to share and are quite generous. However, because ofsin and self-justification, there would likely be very few willing to move over and offer a place at thepond. There are way too many self interests that get in the way. In other words, many would ponderhow much they could afford to offer without having to modify their own life styles but very few wouldlikely be willing to radically alter their life styles, which moving over and sharing would require, for thesake of others.

7


9/25

Others of those who control the resources would likely argue those who are without are at fault forbeing without. People with this mindset rarely offer to even share and vehemently argue they shouldnot be required to do so. Most certainly people with this belief system are not willing to move overand offer a place at the pond. Finally, we would likely see a majority of people who control access tothe pond and the resources therein being too busy with their own lives, work and economic stabilityor instability to even notice there are those without. When crises strikes they are likely to swing one

way or the other but would likely never even dream of offering a place at the pond because thatwould require such radical change.

Likely over time we would see more people being pushed away from the shore as the five percentadd more of Wealth to their already vast holdings. This pushes more of those in between thosewith the most and those without closer to the edges of being without. Further, its likely we would seesome of the people without held in slavery and forced to work for those with vast holdings at thepond without pay and only enough food and water to keep them alive enough to work. It is also likelywe would see countless others from the masses working diligently in horrific conditions just tosurvive. Finally, we would likely see those who profit the most from Wealths resources going outinto the world in search of more ponds throughout the world.18

If the foregoing discussion leads one to believe that a Judeo-Christian understanding of justice orinjustice is strictly tied to economic well-being, he or she would be mistaken. The concept of justiceis much deeper than that. But, because our lives are so linked to who we are in relation to a growingglobal economy, injustice, from a Judeo-Christian perspective, is most visible in our economic lives.Injustice itself is fueled by sin, which Lutherans understand to be the result of being turned in ononeself. Sin looks to self first. It does not and cannot love. It cannot even love self.

The Resulting Poverty

Two kinds of poverty thrive in these conditions. The first is quite easy to see and describe. It is the

poverty caused by the lack of resources or access to them. We can refer to this poverty as thepoverty of economic disadvantage. People affected by this kind of poverty have little control overtheir situations, and they are desperate for the basic relief necessary to survive. They often have totrade off such things as health care for food or food for housing or basic safety. People living in thiskind of poverty are often angry or even desperate so they use whatever means they can to get out oftheir poverty.

Children who grow up in this type of poverty grow up amidst the desperation it brings. They sufferfrom lack of adequate health care, food and access to education. They are often steeped in violenceand the consequences of violence. They are aware of the need for resources to which they have noaccess. They strongly desire those resources and will often use whatever means necessary to

obtain them. It is extremely difficult, though, for them to reach the pond because those who own thepond put up all sorts of barriers to keep them away.

The other type of poverty is often overlooked. It is best described as a poverty of abundance.19

The poverty of abundance is a spiritual poverty that is far more dangerous than the other kind ofpoverty because it is deceptive and much more complex to understand. Most who live in this type ofpoverty would never even consider themselves to be living in poverty at all. It is a poverty thatworships a god of consumerism. People trapped in this kind of poverty already have a piece of thepond and benefit from the yield the pond has to offer. But the god of consumerism preaches to them

8


10/25

they need more. So they seek more sometimes honestly and morally and other times not sohonestly or morally. It is difficult for people living in this type of poverty to understand how theirworship of consumerism so profoundly affects those living in the other type of poverty. Many peoplewho live in this type of poverty are very charitable and generous. Much like George Johnsonsteenage daughter when people who live in the poverty of abundance truly see the effects of the otherpoverty they want to help in some way. Some will even work for and assist with development. But,

as pointed out above, very few are willing to take any personal responsibility for it, and even fewerare willing to move over and share the pond. People who live in the poverty of abundance will doalmost anything to remain in their state of poverty.

Children who grow up in the poverty of abundance have access to quality health care, more thanadequate food and the best education money can buy. From an early age they are taught to pursuesuccess and to measure that success by how much they make and the things they have or are ableto buy, which results in its own violence. They are taught to value hard work. They are taught toexcel in all they do. To find the love they so desperately seek people living in the poverty ofabundance buy more, accumulate more of the pond or to seek more power. They often turn toviolence or at least justify violence as a means to keep that which their parents, grandparents and

others like them worked so hard to attain.

Those who live in the poverty of abundance have control over the resources it takes to obtainpolitical power, and thus, they control public policy throughout the entire area. While many of thosewho obtain political power do so with the best intentions, they are trapped in a climate of temptation.The public policy solutions they then offer to address the poverty of economic disadvantage are to: 1)offer themselves financial incentives that theoretically will stimulate the entire economy creating jobswhich will go to those living in the poverty caused by lack of resources, 2) create entitlementprograms that fall short of providing the resources necessary for those living in the first kind ofpoverty to rise above it, 3) do nothing other than blame those who live in the first kind of poverty fortheir own plight, 4) turn a blind eye to it or 5) rely totally on charitable organizations to address it.While some of these possible solutions offer some resources from the pond of wealth to thosetrapped in the poverty of economic disadvantage none of them even come close to offering them aplace at the pond itself.

The Gulf Coast Disasters

Lets look at a more concrete example. When hurricanes Katrina and Rita swooped in anddevastated New Orleans and the Gulf Coast, people from all walks of life faced the potentialdevastation. The storms did not care about whether the people it hit were people living in the povertyof economic disadvantage or the poverty of abundance. The storms simply did not discriminate.But lets look at the conditions of both groups before the storms hit, the response to the storms and

the resulting public policy debates.

Those living in the poverty of abundance at least had the opportunity to choose to leave before thestorms hit, and they had the necessary resources to do so. Further, they were more likely to ownproperty and to have all the necessary insurance to protect that property even if that insurance wasinsufficient to help them completely recover. When they temporarily lost access to that property, theywere provided with emergency relief including housing (inadequate though it may have been), foodstamps and other assistance.

9


11/25

Those living in the poverty of economic disadvantage, on the other hand, were completelydependent upon others for their safety and well being. Some, like nursing home residents, simplydied because there was no one to move them to safety. Others who were able to make it to safetylived in horrific conditions inside the Superdome completely and totally dependent upon thegenerosity of others for their very survival.20

The charitable response to this devastation has been incredible. Many volunteers risked life andlimb to go to the area to help with relief efforts. Many others have gone since to help rebuild. For themost part it does not appear that the charity offered discriminates in any way. In other words, thoseliving in the poverty of abundance are offered the same charitable services as those living in thepoverty of economic disadvantage.

The public policy debate is much more nebulous. Clearly, there are questions and investigations intogovernments responses or lack thereof. In fact was our entire policy focus in relation to thiscatastrophe. It is natural to look that close to the surface to try to determine who is to blame becausewe want to ensure that someone is blamed. But the greater challenge is to go deeper and ask thosequestions that none of us want to ask but as Christians must ask. How is it that we allowed the

public policy norm to be one in which there exists such a huge disparity between the choices thosewith and those without had to even escape the pending storm? What about the public policy choicesthat are being made in rebuilding the city? Do those choices favor those living in the poverty ofabundance over those living in the poverty of economic disadvantage? There are significantconcerns as plans for rebuilding the city do not include rebuilding some of the poorer neighborhoods.

What a majority of us who offer a charitable response to this disaster probably do not or are notwilling to consider is that even though we are willing to offer a caring and helpful hand, public policychoices that we supported or to which we acquiesced with our inattention or lack of concern costpeople their lives in this disaster. Shortly after the disaster we had the opportunity to step up to theplate to oppose federal budget cuts to such programs as Medicaid, housing, food stamps and

education. At the same time Congress was debating making tax cuts that will benefit three percentof the wealthiest Americans the most. Despite the valiant efforts of the church, individual membersof the church and others, both measures passed.21 Now those who are the wealthiest have theopportunity to make greater gains and profits. Those who are in the middle of the economicspectrum carry a greater share of the burden and those who are already without will go without more(the last phrase will make a great deal of sense if one contemplates it a little).

Slavery and Oppression

If poverty is lurking in the murky darkness, slavery and oppression cannot be far away as the threeare symbiotic. But just like we do with poverty, we place slavery and oppression in nice and tidy littleframes that help us easily capture a picture that while horrific is manageable. However, we must

zoom in and take a closer look.

All of us can easily point out instances of slavery and oppression. Such examples as humanbondage, forced labor and apartheid quickly come to mind. We can place those not so nice picturesin our frames in which we can clearly and easily identify them in safety. What we do not so readilysee, however, is how smudged the edges of those pictures are outside of our frames. The desire,reasoning behind and willingness to use human bondage, forced labor and apartheid are the resultsof another type of bondage. In fact, a number of us confess that bondage weekly when we say, Weconfess that we are in bondage to sin and cannot free ourselves. . . We might as well say that we

10


12/25

are oppressed by sin. Unfortunately, when we say that most of us probably do not see therelationship between that oppression and the oppression we have set aside in our nice frames. Yetthe two are inextricably woven together. The result is that we can go to church, worship and praiseGod, denounce oppression, dance for justice and go home and support, vote for and implementpublic policies that defame God, enhance oppression and are unjust without ever making theconnection. Systematic Theologian Ted Peters argues that we even go beyond that. He posits we

self-justify such behavior. He writes

22

:

Self-justification is our term for drawing the line between good and evil so that we canplace ourselves on the good side. We have a strong, perhaps irresistible, desire to

justify ourselves. It begins with the classic, I didnt steal the cookie. My brother did it.The child thief wants to appear just and good in the eyes of his or her mother.

Blaming ones brother for putting a hand in the cookie jar continues in disguised formwhen we become grown-ups. It takes the form of an ideology of high-minded politicalvalues such as freedom or democracy or prosperity or even Gods blessing to justifygoing to war and reigning death and destruction on villages in foreign lands. Inbetween cookies and bombs, we engage daily in gossip, wherein the victim of ourgossip is placed on the evil side of the line and we, obviously, demonstrate the wisdomof knowing the difference between good and evil. No matter what the level of damage,we draw a line between good and evil and place ourselves on the good side. This ishow sin has worked from the time of Adam and Eve to the present; and this is how wecan expect it to work for the foreseeable future.

Liberation

Liberation theologians have long recognized the connections between injustice, poverty, slavery

and oppression. In response they developed the theory that God has a preferential option forthe poor which essentially posits, [a]s followers of Christ, we are challenged to make apreferential option for the poor, namely, to create conditions for marginalized voices to be heard,to defend the defenseless, and to assess lifestyles, policies and social institutions in terms oftheir impact on the poor. The option for the poor does not mean pitting one group againstanother, but rather, it calls us to strengthen the whole community by assisting those who aremost vulnerable.23

Its a compelling theory that makes good sense and is, arguably, rooted in scripture. A goodexample is Luke 4:18-20 in which Jesus proclaimed he came to bring good news to the poor,proclaim release for the captives, and to let the oppressed go free. But we must be cautious about

our use of language, and thus, in defining who the poor, captives, blind and oppressed aboutwhom Jesus is speaking are. Our tendency is to look inside of our frames and include only thosewho are economically poor, imprisoned by injustice, physically blind, and obviously oppressed in ourdefinitions. However, that is only a part of the picture. Though they may not be economicallydisadvantaged those living in the poverty of abundance are every bit as poor and in need of Christsliberation as those who are economically disadvantaged. The liberation needed, though, is differentand, as Jesus points out himself, more difficult because those who oppressed by the poverty ofabundance do not see the need for liberation.24

11


13/25

Because those of us who occupy leadership roles in the church live in the poverty of abundance, weoften overlook it or ignore it. Overlooking or ignoring it renders our attempts to do justice to merecharity, i.e. helping out those living in the poverty of economic disadvantage by making and helpingthem to make their situations better. But what happens when their situations get better? Does thatmean that Gods justice has been done? When those who live in the poverty of economicdisadvantage are liberated, do they not then begin living in the poverty of abundance? As such, do

they ever then become oppressors?

George Orwells masterpiece,Animal Farm gives us a marvelous perspective on that concept. Atthe beginning of the story, the humans are the oppressors and all of the animals are the oppressed.The animals revolt and are liberated. Because the resulting society must have order, a group fromamong the animals, the pigs, rises to power. Sin enters in and the majority of the animals end up inworse shape than they were under the humans. Ultimately, the pigs themselves become human. Ifwe were to follow the story throughout multiple generations of animals, we would likely see morerevolts and another well meaning group of animals ending up oppressing other animals.

Perhaps a better story for us, however, is the story of the people of Israel. At the end of the book ofGenesis and the beginning of the book of Exodus, we find the people of Israel living in peace and

abundance in Egypt. A new Egyptian king, however, becomes concerned about how that peace andabundance affects his own.25

8 Now a new king arose over Egypt, who did not know Joseph. 9 He said to his people,"Look, the Israelite people are more numerous and more powerful than we. 10 Come,let us deal shrewdly with them, or they will increase and, in the event of war, join ourenemies and fight against us and escape from the land." 11 Therefore they settaskmasters over them to oppress them with forced labor. They built supply cities,Pithom and Rameses, for Pharaoh. 12 But the more they were oppressed, the morethey multiplied and spread, so that the Egyptians came to dread the Israelites. 13 The

Egyptians became ruthless in imposing tasks on the Israelites, 14 and made their livesbitter with hard service in mortar and brick and in every kind of field labor. They wereruthless in all the tasks that they imposed on them.

The remainder of the Exodus story then tells us how God led the people out of their bondage andoppression to a new land with a new promise of life free from oppression. It does not take very long,however, before those newly liberated people become oppressors, which ultimately leads them to anew situation in which they again are the oppressed as exiles in Babylon.

Another way to look at it is through Jesus story of the laborers in the vineyard. I draw particularattention to Matthew 20:16, So the first shall be last, and the last shall be first. I am certainly not a

Biblical scholar so I wont attempt to enter into a scholarly debate on the passage. I will point out,however, that as a matter of common sense if the first is last and the last is first, there is no first norlast; there is only one body in Christ. If it were otherwise, there would always a continuing cycle ofthose who would be first and those who would be last. That would be inconsistent with the kingdomJesus proclaims. Christ offers liberation for all both those who are now first and those who arenow last without preference such that there is neither first nor last.

Among the most incredible examples in recent history of people who clearly understood liberation inthis fashion include Salvadorian Archbishop Oscar Romero, Dietrich Bonhoeffer and Martin Luther

12


14/25

King, Jr. One cannot help but think of Mark 8:34-35 when referencing these disciples: [Jesus] saidto them, If any of you want to become my followers, let them deny themselves and take up theircross and follow me. For those who want to save their life will lose it, and those who lose their life formy sake, and for the sake of the gospel, will save it.26

Romero was a timid and studious man when he was elected to the office of Archbishop by

conservative bishops who believed Romero to be a safe choice. Prior to his election, he was at easewith the elites of the church and state in El Salvador. He was also openly critical of liberationtheology. Those living in the poverty of economic disadvantage had no reason to believe Romerowould ever understand much less embrace their struggle.

While some may argue that Romero later embraced the same liberation theology he formerlycriticized that is not accurate. Instead, Romero came to understand that both those living in thepoverty of economic disadvantage and those living in the poverty of abundance must be liberatedfrom the bondage which oppresses them and that such liberation requires love of neighbor as wellas love of self, compromise and self-sacrifice. He pleaded with both sides in the struggle to end theviolence to look at themselves in relation to their neighbors whom they happened to be killing. In

his last homily, given just moments before he was assassinated, he said, One must not love oneselfso much, as to avoid getting involved in the risks of life that history demands of us, and those thatfend off danger will lose their lives.27

One of the greatest theological minds of his time, Bonhoeffer could have very comfortably stayed inthe halls of academia piously lecturing, writing and teaching into a ripe old age. But Bonhoefferfervently believed that faith requires action. So to follow Jesus, Bonhoeffer believed he must not onlywrite great theology, but he must take action. Arguably, Bonhoeffers greatest achievement was histotal submission to Jesus Christ and his commitment to following Christ at any cost even the costof his life. In 1942, he wrote:28

Because Jesus is not about the proclamation and realization of new ethical ideals, norabout his own moral purity, but only about love for real human beings, therefore he isable to enter into communion with their guilt... Out of his selfless love and hissinlessness, Jesus enters into the guilt of humanity, taking it upon himself...Whoeverwants to escape from responsibility for guilt withdraws...from the redeeming mystery ofJesus Christ's sinless guilt offering and has no share in the divine justification, which isbased on this event. Someone like this puts personal innocence over responsibility forhumanity and is blind to the enormous guilt that is thereby taken upon oneself.

Likewise, Martin Luther King, Jr. could have comfortably stayed in the pulpit where he excelled as apreacher. People would have listened, and he most likely would have grown a huge church filledwith parishioners ready and willing to listen while they waited for someone else to take action. Hedidnt do that and it cost him his very life even though his approach was non-violent. His actions,however, raised criticism from even his colleagues. From his jail cell in Birmingham, he wrote aresponse to fellow clergy concerned with his activities. He wrote:29

13


15/25

While confined here in the Birmingham city jail, I came across your recent statementcalling my present activities "unwise and untimely." Seldom do I pause to answercriticism of my work and ideas. If I sought to answer all the criticisms that cross mydesk, my secretaries would have little time for anything other than suchcorrespondence in the course of the day, and I would have no time for constructive

work. But since I feel that you are men of genuine good will and that your criticisms aresincerely set forth, I want to try to answer your statements in what I hope will be patientand reasonable terms.

I am in Birmingham because injustice is here (emphasis added). Just as theprophets of the eighth century B.C. left their villages and carried their "thus saith theLord" far beyond the boundaries of their home towns, and just as the Apostle Paul lefthis village of Tarsus and carried the gospel of Jesus Christ to the far corners of theGreco-Roman world, so am I compelled to carry the gospel of freedom beyond myown home town. Like Paul, I must constantly respond to the Macedonian call for aid. . .

But though I was initially disappointed at being categorized as an extremist, as Icontinued to think about the matter I gradually gained a measure of satisfaction fromthe label. Was not Jesus an extremist for love: "Love your enemies, bless them thatcurse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully useyou, and persecute you." Was not Amos an extremist for justice: "Let justice roll downlike waters and righteousness like an ever-flowing stream." Was not Paul an extremistfor the Christian gospel: "I bear in my body the marks of the Lord Jesus." Was notMartin Luther an extremist: "Here I stand; I cannot do otherwise, so help me God." AndJohn Bunyan: "I will stay in jail to the end of my days before I make a butchery of myconscience." And Abraham Lincoln: "This nation cannot survive half slave and halffree." And Thomas Jefferson: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men arecreated equal ..." So the question is not whether we will be extremists, but what kind ofextremists we be. Will we be extremists for hate or for love? Will we be extremists forthe preservation of injustice or for the extension of justice? In that dramatic scene onCalvary's hill three men were crucified. We must never forget that all three werecrucified for the same crime---the crime of extremism. Two were extremists forimmorality, and thus fell below their environment. The other, Jesus Christ, was anextremist for love, truth and goodness, and thereby rose above his environment.Perhaps the South, the nation and the world are in dire need of creative extremists.

There are leaders in our present church who are definitely making attempts to bring the churchcloser to this understanding. The very fact that one of the strategic directions of the church is to be achurch that steps forward as a public church that witnesses boldly to all that God has created,

seeking to promote justice, peace, and the care of the earth shows a deep commitment to movingforward. Still we must be honest that in an overall analysis the church fairs poorly because its officialpolicies are not written in the hearts of a majority of its membership. Let me explain by offering abrief analysis of public policy.

Public Policy

A discussion of a Judeo-Christian understanding of what it means to strive for justice and peace inall the earth would be grossly incomplete without a discussion of public policy. Once again we must

14


16/25

be careful to not move too quickly to our own frames of reference to define the term public policy. Ifwe do we will get trapped into thinking that public policy is strictly government action and our solefocus on changing public policy becomes advocating for legislative or regulatory change.

So if public policy is not so limited, what is it and what does it include? While it may soundoverwhelming, public policy includes those official and unofficial policies that define the manner inwhich a community or society functions. We need to make a distinction between policy and publicpolicy. To be true public policy, the policy must be embraced by a majority of people in thecommunity or forced on a weak or inattentive majority by a minority such that it becomes a part of thelife of the community. Many institutions and cultures have official policies that never become publicpolicy because those policies are never embraced by or become a part of the life of the community.

Whether done formally or informally, developing and implementing public policy is a difficult andcomplex process that is dependent upon many factors. One of the key factors, though, is garneringpublic support. Whether or not the policy becomes public policy can and often does, in fact, hinge onhow the issue is framed. George Lakoff, a cognitive scientist, has researched, written and lecturedextensively on issue framing and how critical such framing is in selling policy ideas to the public atlarge. He provides us with several excellent examples to emphasize his point. One is tax relief.

Suppose a small minority of people want to reduce the amount they pay in income taxes. For that tobecome public policy, they must first get support from the majority. By putting the words tax andrelief together they create a metaphor that conjures up images of one getting relief fromburdensome, oppressive and unfair taxes. Before long those seeking political office are jumping onthe proverbial band wagon by promising they are going to bring tax relief. The voting public, then,expects such relief without even thinking about what that truly means when, in fact, it sometimesmeans they end up carrying a greater share of tax responsibility in other ways.

A great example of this kind of thinking is what happened in Alabama in September of 2003 when 2out 3 Alabamians rejected a far reaching and comprehensive tax plan that would have fundamentallychanged the tax system of the State to generate more than $1 billion in new revenue. 30 Consistent

with Thomas Franks theories in Whats the Matter with Kansas, a majority of people who voted toreject this tax plan would have personally benefited from its passage. What happened? Why didthose who would have benefited most, vote against its passage. It comes down to framing. Someorganizations do such an excellent job of framing their issues that people who would not normallyconsider themselves a part of the organizations primary community nonetheless vehemently supportthe policies promoted by the organization even if they are contrary to their self-interests. Many ofthese policy proposals center on those low-sacrifice issues identified by Professor Hamill wherelittle other than personal piety is at stake. Further, the manner in which these issues are framedhelps us to self-justify as posited by Professor Peters as discussed above.

This is a very difficult concept to grasp. So lets continue the tax relief example to explore it more

deeply. When we hear people in authority telling us they are going to bring us relief from our taxeswe start drawing those clear lines between good and evil in our minds. We justify that we are goodand since we are good we deserve relief from bad things and taxes are always bad. We go furtheron our journey of self-justification when we argue that people should be self-sufficient, pullthemselves up by their own bootstraps and not rely on taxes on our hard earned, and thus,deserved income for medical care or food or child care. We rationalize once again, to use Dr.Peters analysis, and place ourselves on the good side and those who are not self-sufficient onthe bad side. But the concept of self-sufficiency flies in the face of Judeo-Christian values whichare rooted in a sense of community in which everything is understood to be a gift from God entrusted

15


17/25

to humankind for the benefit of all creation including other humans. In the Judeo-Christianexperience and understanding of God there is no yours, mine and ours.31 Rather, there is onlyGods.

Both the Hebrew and Christian scriptures are full of clear commands from God to share that to whichwe have been entrusted with others. The very fact that there are those without in a society such asours that claims to be one nation under God with liberty and justice for all shows how far we havestrayed from God.

Rights vs. Responsibilities

I gave the closing address at a recent meeting. The title of my presentation was to be Speaking upfor Human Rights. As I prepared for that presentation, I began by asking myself the question, Whatare human rights? I began that journey by looking at the word rights. When I use or hear theword, it evokes certain images for me. One of the strongest is that a right is something to which I amentitled. So I had to ask myself further: As a Christian to what am I entitled? In my understandingof what it means to be a Christian, I found myself answering: I am entitled to nothing not evenlife. If we confess and truly believe that God is creator of all things then it follows that everything

belongs to God and only God has a right to anything. But, rather than recognizing these things ascoming from God, we begin to worship them, demand them, kill for them and self-justify in them.

Thomas Jefferson captured that concept so well when he wrote: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights,that among those are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It is a profound statement that showsa deep understanding of Gods creation as not just a simple one-time gift, but an endowment withwhich no other human has a right to interfere. However, thats a concept which is difficult to grasp,and rather than focusing on the word endowment, we focus on the word rights when we ponderJeffersons statement. Thus, we have become a people who, instead of being thankful for ourendowment, take it for granted and demand our rights.

Gods endowments or gifts are indeed tremendous blessings for which we should be immeasurablythankful. But, we also learn from Genesis that those endowments come with a responsibility to be ablessing.32 If we return to first/last metaphor proffered by Jesus in Matthew 20:18 thinking in terms ofthese endowments coming with responsibility we should have an even deeper understanding ofJesus teaching here. Rather than thinking in terms of anyone having a right to be first, we shouldthink in terms of everyone having a responsibility to not strive for first-ness, even if we intend thatfirst-ness for good. Thus, those who are first, however that is defined, should understand they arein that position because they are violating the responsibility God demands of them not because Godhas blessed them such that they are first or their blessings are something to which they are entitled.If everyone utilized their gifts to bless, there would never be a first or a last.

So doing justice, from a Judeo-Christian perspective, has more to do with living out thoseresponsibilities rather than forcing others to not trample on our rights. Unfortunately, sin not justenters the picture but blasts itself all over it like a rotten tomato staining and distorting it. Thus, lawsbecome necessary for society to even function. But sin messes that up too such that no law isperfect or even close to perfect.

16


18/25

Stepping Forward as a Public Church

One of the modern classics of literature is the book To Kill a Mockingbirdby the southern genius,Harper Lee. While there are several outstanding lessons about the realities of Christian behavior inthat book, one of the most poignant is a scene in which the little girl, Scout, is observing a meeting of

a womens missionary group from her church. The women passionately discuss the plight of theMrunas, an African tribe being converted to Christianity, and then discuss how poorly their own blackservants have been acting since Tom Robinsons conviction. Scout, now age 9, is bewildered byand cannot reconcile the hypocrisy of the adults. Mrs. Merriweathers large brown eyes alwaysfilled up with tears when she considered the oppressed [in Africa], Scout notes, yet the same womancan complain that theres nothing more distracting than a sulky darky. 33

The book was written in the 1950s about the American south in the 1930s. Yet the tenor of theconversation carries on today in churches throughout the United States and spills out in officialgovernment policy. In a recent speech Bill Moyers stated:34

The Christian Right trumpets charity (as in Faith Based Initiatives) but is silent onsocial and economic justice. Inequality in America has reached scandalousproportions: a few weeks ago the government acknowledged that while incomes aregrowing smartly for the first time in years, the primary winners are the top earnerspeople who receive stocks, bonuses, and other income in addition to wages. Thenearly 80 percent of Americans who rely mostly on hourly wages barely maintainedtheir purchasing power. Even as Hurricane Katrina was hitting the Gulf Coast, givingus a stark reminder of how poverty can shove poor people into the abyss, the U.S.Census Bureau reported that last year one million people were added to 36 millionalready living in poverty. And since l999 the income of the poorest one fifth of

Americans has dropped almost nine percent.Mr. Moyers speech targeted one particular group of Christians known at the Christian Right.However, in all fairness his comments ring true about other Christian groups and individuals withinstill other Christian groups -- at least in part. As a body these groups, including the ELCA, have wellreasoned and faithful official policy statements that address such things as social and economicinjustice. Further, these groups, including the ELCA, faithfully advocate in favor of federal and statepublic policy consistent with those official policy statements. Unfortunately, the official policystatements of these churches are not necessary their public policy. Remember that for policy to bepublic policy it must be embraced by a majority of the community and become a part of the life ofthe community. Thats primarily where these two groups differ. The policy advocated for by theChristian Right is its public policy. That policy is embraced by a majority of the community such thatwhen its leaders call upon the body for action they get tremendous response. Sadly, quite often it isalso the public policy of these other Christian groups by default because it is the policy embraced bythe majority of the community of those other Christian groups as well.

Lets look at some concrete examples. C. E. Carlson, a member of Project Strait Gait, anorganization opposing the war in Iraq, wrote to Community of Joy Church, an ELCA congregation inPhoenix, AZ,35 advising the church of his organizations desire to hold a vigil in opposition to the waron the Palm Sunday of that particular year. On Saturday, Mr. Carlson got a phone call fromsomeone identified as Wayne Skaff, a staff member of Community of Joy. Mr. Skaff emphatically

17


19/25

told Mr. Carlson he did not want Mr. Carlsons organization to visit the church because theircongregation is largely unchurched, and he believed some might leave if they saw a demonstrationopposing the war. Mr. Carlson asked Mr. Skaff if the church had taken a position opposing theslaughter of innocent Iraqis, or any of the serial wars. The answer was a flat no.36 When Mr.Carlson pointed out that the ELCA officially opposed the action, Mr. Skaff replied that the ELCA doesnot set Community of Joys policy.37

One can certainly understand why a congregation might have legitimate concerns about ademonstration of any kind on its grounds. So that in and of itself is not troubling. What is troubling isthat the Community of Joy not only denied taking a position on the war but distanced itself from theposition of the ELCA. The question that is left hanging is whether Community of Joy embraces anyof the official policies of the ELCA. Can those official policies then truly be the public policy of thechurch?

Another example is an ELCA congregation that openly lifts up its refusal to hire a highly qualifiedorganist because he acknowledged his homosexual orientation. To defend its action the churchstates that it wants to send a message in opposition to the gay lifestyle. But ELCA Church CouncilAction CC.93.3.37 adopted in 1993, provides:

RESOLVED, that the Church Council of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Americareaffirms that the historical position of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America is:

Support for legislation, referendums, and policies to protect the civil rights of allpersons, regardless of their sexual orientation, and to prohibit discrimination inhousing, employment, and public services and accommodations . . .

While the church in this example might have had some legitimate concerns about a single personengaging in sexual relationships outside of marriage joining its staff, the message it sends, and

appears to want to send, is that it is okay to discriminate against someone on the basis of sexualorientation. So is CC.93.3.37 public policy of the church? This particular congregation says veryloudly and clearly that it is not.

In yet another example a member of an ELCA congregation was running for mayor of a large city.He actively campaigned for economic policies that are in direct conflict with the ELCAs SocialStatement on Economic Life: Sufficient Sustainable Livelihood for All. Certainly, an individualmember of the ELCA can disagree with the ELCA. However, one of the candidates televisioncampaign ads featured his connection to his church and showed a picture of him conversing with hispastor a well-known and prominent figure in the community. As that picture passed before theviewer, a narrator announced, faithful church person. The message was powerful. It said, or at

least implied, that one of the most prominent ELCA congregations in the community endorses thosecontrary economic policies.

This last example is possibly the most dangerous. It is more dangerous because we can probablybe confident the pastor did not even consider (and may not have ever read) the Social Statement onEconomic Life when he inadvertently endorsed these contrary positions. So most likely this pastorwho is so prominent in the community and someone with whom people in the community identify thechurch did not even think about his actions in terms of the policy message. If this can happen to a

18


20/25

well trained and experienced pastor one can only imagine where the majority of members are in theirunderstanding of the policies of the ELCA.

Are these isolated incidents of a bothersome illness or representations of an advanced cancer?Does it matter? If we are serious about stepping forward as a public church, can they be ignored?

Certainly, various expressions of the church are already engaged in the public sphere. However, thequestion that continues to loom in my mind as I think about what it means to step forward as a publicchurch is whether we can truly do that without seriously and sincerely assessing and addressing ourown poverty of abundance and its resulting slavery, oppression and our own need for liberation. Inother words, is it enough for the church to officially step forward as a public church without honestlyassessing whether our official policies are also our public policies, and, if they truly are not as Itheorize above, whether we can be effective as a public church without somehow infusing thosepolicies into the body such that they are organic to it?

George Johnson refers to this as moving from priest to priesthood38, a concept that is certainlyfamiliar to Lutherans. But Johnsons use is unique because he is talking about a way of life in whichthere is no separation such that the responsibility for stepping forward as a public church does not lie

with certain expressions of the church but with the church as a whole in all of its expressions,including its membership. If that were the case, all expressions of the church would at least strive tolive out the policies it promotes and lifts up, and we would not have one expression of the churchpromoting certain practices as the seven common faith practices without even a slight reference topursuing peace and justice. If that were the case, all expressions of the church which purchasevehicles or build buildings would seriously wrestle with the Social Statement, Caring for Creation,when considering the type of vehicle to purchase or building to build.

Current Practices and Tools Used in the ELCA

There appear to be three distinct tools the institution known as the ELCA uses to pursue justice:

advocacy, community based organizing, and social ministry. These tools are used both formally andinformally by various expressions of the church in various ways. I submit, however, there is a hugepiece missing: prophetic ministry. Prophetic ministry is important to stepping out as a publicchurch because without it, we are not, except in isolated instances, engaging the people in ourchurch into deep and meaningful self-examination of what it means to live out ones faith.

Lets try to define prophetic ministry. In his work, The Prophetic Imagination, Old Testamentscholar Walter Brueggemann offers a definition of prophetic ministry. He writes39:

I suggest that prophetic ministry has to do not primarily with addressing specific publiccrises, but with addressing, in season and out of season, the dominant crisis that isenduring and resilient, of having our alternative vocation co-opted and domesticated.It may be, of course, that this enduring crisis manifests itself in any given time aroundconcrete issues, but it concerns the enduring crisis that runs from concrete issue toconcrete issue . . . The alternative consciousness to be nurtured, on the one hand,serves to criticize in dismantling the dominant consciousness . . . On the other hand,that alternative consciousness to be nurtured served to energize persons andcommunities by its promise of another time and situation toward which the communityof faith may move. . . In thinking this way, the key word is alternative, and every

19


21/25

prophetic minister and prophetic community must engage in a struggle with thatnotion. Thus, alternative to what? In what ways alternative? How radicallyalternative? Finally, is there a thinkable alternative that will avoid domestication? And,quite concretely, how does one present and act out alternatives in a community of faithwhich on the whole does not understand that are any alternatives or is not prepared to

embrace such if they come along?

A prophetic voice is one that speaks primarily to its own community and makes linkages between thefaith that serves as the foundation of the faith and what is happening in the world. We need tounderstand, however, that does not necessarily mean the prophetic voice is telling the communityhow it should live. Rather, the role of that voice is to raise questions and make linkages.

We can look to the Old Testament prophets for examples. Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Hosea, Joel,Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi allspoke directly to their own people. Each of them delivered messages that spoke profoundly to thecommunity not just to community leaders. They urged, pleaded and demanded the people look atthemselves in relation to God. Some of them, like Jeremiah, clearly directed their messages more

intently at community leaders, but all of them spoke so all the people could hear. We must,therefore, speak to our own people. We must teach about living out our faith in the public sector asresponsible citizens of faith. We must make connections between faith and public policy.

This is often troublesome because it involves conversations that often place individual members ofthe body in conflict with the body. But being prophetic has never been safe or comfortable. Rather itis a huge undertaking that requires a lot of risky work in developing and delivering a message that isunderstandable in multiple cultures and venues using the media available. It involves theologicalstruggle, and the ability to connect that theology to the issues. It involves having in-depthunderstandings of the policies of the church and the ability to make that understanding come alive forsomeone else. It involves developing or collecting curricula that can be used effectively with multiple

audiences. It involves public speaking. It involves writing. It involves preaching. It involvesteaching. It involves listening. It involves facing our fears. It involves training others, includingpastors, to do the same. It involves developing public information campaigns.

While there clearly is a prophetic aspect to advocacy, doing advocacy is not in and itself prophetic.The ELCA generally defines advocacy as speaking on behalf of those who have no voice. Thereare various ways in which that definition can be interpreted. A literal reading, however, leads one toquestion whether the definition emphasizes charityoverjustice because such a reading implies anaction in which a party in a superior position speaks to those in power on behalf of those in a lesserposition presumably in order to promote policies that place those in the lesser position in a betterposition. It focuses on liberation for one group only those who have no voice. It presumes those

who have voice do not need liberation or are already liberated. But liberation in Christ is an ongoingand never ending process.

Because I am intimately involved in the advocacy work of the ELCA, I understand the way in whichadvocacy in the ELCA is practiced does not adhere strictly to the definition. It is certainly muchbroader than the definition implies. Nonetheless, because the way in which we define things says somuch about the frames that form around the various understandings of what the ELCA is attemptingto do, it is important for all of us to look at that definition closely. But, by its nature, advocacy dealsprimarily with those concrete issues rather than engaging the community in conversation and

20


22/25

struggle with those ongoing crises as discussed by Brueggemann. More dangerously, advocacy, atleast to a certain extent, assumes the community supports the conclusions on which the advocacyposition is based.

Let me give an example. A farmer approached me with concerns about the ELCA being involved inadvocacy work on the Farm Bill. He specifically referred to the definition of advocacy in raising hisconcern. His basic concerns were as follows: Advocacy means speaking on behalf of those whohave no voice. Farmers have voice through various farm organizations. So why is the ELCAinvolved in advocacy on the Farm Bill? I quickly pointed out that the Food Stamp program is a partof the Farm Bill. Because the Food Stamp program is intended to benefit those who have no voice,the ELCAs advocacy work is appropriate. I also pointed out there are other parts of the Farm Billthat fit within the definition.

In reflection, however, I think there are deeper reasons for the church to be involved in somethinglike the Farm Bill. The Farm Bill represents public policy that sets rules for and greatly impacts theway in which important resources (gifts from God) are distributed among Gods people (all thepeople in the world) an ongoing crisis. As such it is ajustice issue. Consequently, the Churchshould not only be concerned about the Farm Bills treatment of those who live in the poverty of

economic disadvantage but also its treatment of those who live in the poverty of abundance, howthese two diverse groups understand each other, and how all of it relates Gods plan for all ofcreation. So even if the Food Stamp program were not a part of the Farm Bill, the ELCA shouldspeak not on behalf of those who have no voice but as an expression of a God who calls us to do

justice (Micah 6:8). In other words, we should be speaking with, to and on behalf of Gods entirecreation not simply one portion of it we have determined to be disadvantaged or balancing theinterests of the disadvantaged or the advantaged. Further, the church should not just be speaking tothose in power about something such as the Farm Bill, but also to the community. I place emphasison the word to because prophetic ministry means more than being involved in ongoing discussion.It certain involves that aspect. But, there is a strong teaching component to it. Teaching, of course,involves listening and adapting.

Thus, my explanation of the ELCAs advocacy work in relation to the Farm Bill because it impacts thepoor was not only inadequate, from a justice perspective it was misleading because my responseimplied that its the charitable thing to do. One might ask, Wheres the harm in that? Its harmfulbecause it perpetuates the misunderstanding that doing charity is the same as doing justice.

Another tool used within the ELCA in an effort to live out the part of the baptismal covenant calling usto strive for justice and peace in all the earth is congregation based organizing. While congregationbased organizing might look somewhat different in different communities, there are some basiccharacteristics fairly common to most congregation based organizing groups. First and foremost,they are community based. Second, they generally share some form of the iron rule, which is that

you should never do for someone what they are not willing to do for themselves. (Cite authority)

Congregation based organizing is relational. It generally involves a leader who facilitates thediscovery and development of leaders within the community. Those leaders develop and fosterrelationships among members of the community. Issues addressed by the community are thoseraised by members of the community through an intentional process.

As such, congregation based organizing, like advocacy, addresses those concrete issues born out ofcrises rather than the ongoing crises that run from concrete issue to concrete issue. That may have

21


23/25

some prophetic aspects to it, but it certainly is not prophetic in and of itself. Further, the focus ofcongregation based organizing being on the community itself doesnt urge members of thatcommunity to recognize the effects of its actions on the larger community and the linkages betweenits actions and all of creation.

Another major way in which the ELCA seems to be involved in pursuing justice is through socialministry organizations (SMOs). SMOs are generally direct service providers though they often doso much more. Since the primary purpose or focus of SMOs is on direct service, they are inherentlymore focused on charity than on justice. When SMOs do advocacy or organizing, they focus moreon advocating and organizing around positions that enable them to be able to provide services.Thus, for example, it might not be in an SMOs self interest to advocate in favor of a living wagebecause it could affect the organizations ability to provide services.

Further, although there have been some efforts to bring those involved in using these tools togetherto talk about ways in which they can work together, so much of that conversation seems to havefocused on validating the role each plays in pursuing justice. It does not appear the conversationhas focused on the central theme of what it means to strive for justice and peace in all the Earth.Certainly, it did not discuss the lack of prophecy.

Closing Thoughts

I was first going to call this section Conclusion, but I could not figure out how to conclude. I thenthought I would call it Summary, but that did not seem to fit either. So I settled on ClosingThoughts primarily because at some point I need to quit writing and begin sharing this paper. Onething I understand, though, is that as I continue my ongoing journey to discover what it means to liveout my faith, I will pull this paper out and revise it. I invite you to do the same. I understand that wewill never get it completely right so the paper itself will never be completely right. But I write it to stirthought and engage a community in conversation.

There are some pieces of this paper, however, from which I am fairly certain I will not move too far.First, as a people of faith, it is vital that we continually struggle with what it means to pursue justiceand to explore what that means from not only a theological perspective but also a practicalperspective. Second, if, as a church we develop policies that speak to how people of faith shouldlive out their lives in the public sector, we must be serious about engaging the people of our churchin conversation about those policies so they not only become organic to our own understandings ofwhat it means to be a public church but also to give them the opportunity to be involved in re-shapingwhat we call living documents. Third, we must be intentional about being prophetic. We must teachour pastors how to speak to people about the world as it is in relation to the way it should be. Finally,we must find a way for those entities of the church that are engaged in the pursuit of justice to work

together for the greater good of the whole church, and more important, for the good of Godskingdom.

22


24/25

1 I served as Director of Justice and Advocacy Ministries, ELCA Nebraska from 2000 to 2010. I received a B.A. with academic distinction in PoliticalScience with minors in Social Sciences and German from Wayne State College in 1980, and a J.D. from the University of Nebraska-Lincoln College of

Law in 1986. Since graduating from law school, I have worked primarily in the public sector with emphasis on elder law and family law. In 2008 I

received a Certifice of Theological Education theology on at Pacific Lutheran Theological Seminary in Berkeley, California through the TheologicalEducation for Emerging Ministries program. I currently serve as a consultant for the legal services program of the South Central Nebraska Area

Agency on Aging and as Pastor at Emmanuel Lutheran Church in Beatrice, Nebraska.

2Formerly referred to as the Office of Public Policy Advocacy of the Nebraska Synod. The name was changed to Justice Ministries in 2003 and to

Justice and Advocacy Ministries in 2005 in recognition that while a primary aspect of our work is public policy advocacy, the work we are called to do is

a ministry that is intrinsically related to the part of the Baptismal Covenant that calls us to strive for justice and peace in all the world. The namechange reflects this understanding and attempts to incorporate the concepts of justice, advocacy and ministry.

3 This is often referred to as family values, which carries all sorts of connotations.

4 A phrase borrowed from my friend and colleague, Andrew Genszler, Director of Domestic Policy for the ELCA Washington Office

5 Affirmation of Baptism, Lutheran Book of Worship, Page 201

6Rowland Sherrill, Speech at the FACS Conference, September 23, 2003,http://www.facsnet.org/issues/faith/civil_religion1.htm

7 Introduction to the Book of Amos, The New Oxford Annotated Bible, NRSV, Oxford University Press, 1991, 1994

8 Amos 2:6-8, NRSV

9 Amos 5:21-24, NRSV

10 Daniel Erlander, Manna and Mercy, Gods Unfolding Promise to Mend the Entire Universe, 1992

11 See, Thomas Frank, Whats the Matter with Kansas

12 Susan Pace Hamill,An Evaluation of Federal Tax Policy Based on Judeo-Christian Ethics, copyright 2005 by Susan Pace Hamill and THE VIRGINIA

TAX REVIEW, forthcoming in Volume 25 of THE VIRGINIA TAX REVIEW, Winter 2006, page 60.

13 Ibid, page 60.

14 George Johnson, Beyond Guilt: Christian Response to Human Suffering, copyright 2000 by George S. Johnson, page 41.

15 Ibid, page 42

16 Ibid, page 42

17Sadly in the real world those who have no access and borrow to obtain the resources they need or want do so at great cost. Interest rates onpayday loans, for example, can range between 300 to 700%. Amazingly, those rates often pale in comparison when one converts the bank chargesfor overdrafts to an annual percentage rate which can be as high at 5000%.

18 The United States is currently embroiled in a most heated debate on immigration. As I listen to that debate, I cant help but make connections.

Without question, the United States is one of the most, if not the most, wealthy and powerful nations in the entire world. Our neighbors living in Mexicoand Central America see the United States as a land full of better opportunities for them and their families. So they take great risks to seek out those

opportunities or a share of the pond if you will. Many dont expect that to happen for them, but they have great expectations for the coming

generations. Many Americans, on the other hand, can see the value of exploiting cheap immigrant labor for expanding their own wealth and well being,but they are greatly concerned about the rising economic costs of a growing immigrant population, i.e., higher taxation, fewer jobs for Americans (not

that Americans generally want those jobs). In short those who are coming to the United States want more (maybe even just enough to live). Those

who dont want the immigrants dont want share any more of what they have than they have to.

19 The term poverty of abundance appears to have been coined by author Albert U. Romasco in his 1965 book, The Poverty of Abundance: Hoover,

the Nation, the Depression, Oxford University Press, 1965. I must confess I have not read Romascos book and was not aware of its existence until I

researched the term poverty of abundance in preparing this paper. I had first heard the term used by Rev. David deFreese, Bishop of the Nebraska

Synod of the ELCA, and have adopted the term.

20 For a more detailed discussion of the disparity in choice see, http://understandingkatrina.ssrc.org/Fussell/

21 Lest this sound too bleak, it should be pointed out that the budget reconciliation package passed by only two votes and the Food Stamp program was

spared.22 Ted Peters, From Sin to Radical Evil, Theological Brief for PLTS/ITE, http://www.plts.edu/docs/ITESinx1.pdf, December 2005

23An Introduction to the Principles of Catholic Social Thought, 2004, University of Notre Dame,

http://centerforsocialconcerns.nd.edu/mission/cst/cst4.shtml

24 See Luke 18:22-25

25Ex 1:8-14 (NRSV)

26 Mark 8:34-35, NRSV

27 Cite source here
http://www.facsnet.org/issues/faith/civil_religion1.htmhttp://www.facsnet.org/issues/faith/civil_religion1.htmhttp://www.plts.edu/docs/ITESinx1.pdfhttp://www.plts.edu/docs/ITESinx1.pdfhttp://www.facsnet.org/issues/faith/civil_religion1.htmhttp://www.plts.edu/docs/ITESinx1.pdf


25/25

28 Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Ethics, DBW 6:275f

29 Martin Luther King, Jr., Letter from Birmingham Jail, April 16, 1963

30 Dr. Jim Seroka,Alabamas Tax Reform: What Went Wrong and Why? Alabama Revenue Officers Association, December 5, 2003, page 1,

http://www.auburn.edu/outreach/cgs/publications/Alabamataxvote2003.pdf

31 See e.g. Gen. 1:24-28, Gen. 9:1-7, and Gen. 12:1-3

32 See Genesis 12:2-3

33 Harper Lee, To Kill A Mockingbird, _______________________________________________

34Bill Moyers, 9/11 and the Sport of God, a speech delivered at Union Theological Seminary in New York on September 9, 2005.

35 Since the writing of this paper, the Community of Joy has terminated its affiliation with the ELCA and is now affiliated with the Lutheran Church inMission for Christ.

36 C. E. Carlson, Palm Sunday Vigil, a Mega-Church That Does Not Stand Against War, http://www.whtt.org/straitgate/index.php?id=28

37 Ibid

38 George Johnson, . .

39 Walter Brueggemann, The Prophetic Imagination, Second Edition, 2001 Augsburg Fortress, pages 3 and 4

The Not So Common Faith Practice

Documents

Transcript of The Not So Common Faith Practice