CENTERpiece2

VOICES of FAITH HELPED MAKE HISTORY!

2009-11-09T16:29:00.006-05:00

by Rev. Linda Walling
Executive Director
Faithful Reform in Health Care
and Senior Advisor on Comprehensive Health Care
for the Disciples Center for Public Witness

214, 215, 216, 217, 218... then 219 and 220!

It was almost like New Year's Eve watching the vote count grow to the 218 votes needed to pass the health care bill. But it was so much bigger than an annual New Year's Eve celebration. We were watching history being made! Never before had there been a vote on the floor of Congress that would make comprehensive health care reform possible in the U.S. And the first time it happened, it passed!

But more than just being witnesses to this historic moment, people of faith were in the midst of it; we were making history. Persistent messages of hope, compassion, the common good, shared responsibility, concern for those who are vulnerable, and faithful stewardship of our abundant health care resources helped shape history. Voices of faith mattered for yesterday's vote... and your voices of faith will matter in the weeks ahead.

Of course, none of us see this as the perfect bill. Some of us wanted more, some less; some wanted to add provisions, and others wanted to remove them. But there is broad agreement that this bill was a huge first step -- not the final design for our health care future. Rather, we have planted seeds that will need to be cultivated, weeded, and fertilized until they yield the harvest of a health care system that is truly inclusive, accessible, affordable and accountable.

So for now, please call or email your Representative and share your thoughts about her/his vote on this bill. Leave a reminder that you remain committed to working for health care for all and you urge a similar commitment from her/him.

Toll free number: 1-888-797-8717.

To see how your representative voted, PLEASE CLICK HERE.

For more information and resources, PLEASE CLICK HERE.

"Makes Me Wanna Holler": Health Care in America

2009-09-14T20:19:00.012-04:00

by Rev. Dr. Alvin Jackson
Senior Pastor
Park Avenue Christian Church
New York, NY

In his unflinchingly honest autobiography, Makes Me Wanna Holler, A Young Black Man in America, Nathan McCall looks back on his journey from troubled youth to professional journalist and shows that the easy answers to why kids go wrong--poverty, terrible home life, lack of education--do not always apply. In recounting his story, McCall makes clear how young black men, feeling they have no options in a society that devalues them, try to maintain self-respect by going against everything the white "system" stands for, adopting the pose of the outlaw and a code of macho violence.

He writes in the book, "I see a younger, meaner generation out there now--more lost and alienated than we were, and placing even less value on life. We were at least touched by role models; this new bunch is totally estranged from the black mainstream. Crack has taken the drug game to a more lethal level and given young blacks far more economic incentive to opt for the streets. I've come to fear that of the many things a young black man can die from, the first may be rage--his own or someone else's. For that reason, I seldom stick around when I stop on the block. One day not long ago, I spotted a few familiar faces hanging out at the old haunt, the 7-Eleven. I wheeled into the parking lot, strode over, and high-fived the guys I knew. Within moments, I sensed that I was in danger. I felt hostile stares from those I didn't know. I was frightened by these younger guys, who now controlled my former turf. I eased back to my car and left, because I knew this: that if they saw the world as I once did, they believed they had nothing to lose, including life itself. And it made me wanna holler!"

And in the words of Marvin Gaye’s Inner City Blues with "the way they do my life with bad breaks and setbacks, crime is increasing, trigger happy policing, panic is spreading. Yea, it makes me wanna holler and throw up both my hands!"

I don’t know about you, but I so identify with Nathan McCall and Marvin Gaye. There are so many situations and conditions in life and in the life of our society and world that just make me wanna holler. Those situations and conditions that are pernicious, intractable, oppressive, impossible, immovable and it just makes me wanna holler!

And one of those mean, menacing situations that disturbs me to no end is that in this great land of ours, the wealthiest nation in the world, we have not been able to find a way to provide health care to everyone--health care that is accessible, affordable, accountable and inclusive, open to all without barriers, distributed effectively, efficiently and equitably not as privilege, but as basic fundamental right for everyone.

47 million people in this land uninsured, 5 million of that number are children, 3/12 million have lost their health care since 2008 and 44,000 will lose their health care this week. That’s not just an economic and political issue, that is a moral and theological issue. Is it not? And I don’t know about you, but it makes me wanna holler!

Why can’t we speak truth to power and hold our elected leaders accountable, stop all of this fear mongering about socialized medicine and political posturing and denial and game-playing that protects the interest of the powerful and the neglects both the common good and the plight of the least of these. Oh, it makes me wanna holler!

I am not trying to make an argument this morning for a particular health care plan, though I think nothing fundamentally changes without the public option, but what I am really doing this morning is making a call to commitment to the care of people, particularly the least of these.

For in a very real sense the church has always been in the health care business. Jesus spent three years of ministry preaching, teaching and healing, but Jesus was most known among the people as a healer.

The crowds that followed him requested a healing touch more often than a holy word. And he offered wellness and wholeness to those who were in pain, in distress, in the darkness of blindness or the disarray of a troubled mind and spirit. He provided bread and fish and water and wine to the crowds that clamored about him, tending to the needs of their stomachs as well as to their souls. I want to scream sometimes and I am learning not to silence my scream, but to channel it and focus it with my prayers and petitions and with my voice and my vote. To keep on hollering for health care reform and a more just and equitable society until the world, weary of the sound and weary of the challenge, takes notice and transforms! That’s our work!

When life threatens you, when circumstances oppress you or people you love or the people God loves oppress you, you need to holler! You can’t just go about business as usual. Timidity and tentativeness is not in order! You can’t just come to church quietly, sit and listen to the sermon quietly and go home quietly! No, every now and then you’ve got to stand up and howl against the night and the people who impose it. You’ve got to raise your voice and holler until your voice and vote and prayers and petitions and actions change your world!

When you holler, you are not hollering alone! God hollers with you! For God always hollers on the side of the poor, on the side of uninsured children and struggling families and on the side of what is right and just and good and holy and whole. God is hollering! Yes She is!

And in the end, right will win; truth crushed to earth will rise again, every knee will bow, every tongue confess; the wicked will cease from troubling and the weary will be at rest; weeping endures for a night, but joy comes in the morning!

And in the meantime, I am gonna stand where God stands and every now and then holler. Holler for health care! Holler for wellness and wholeness! Holler for a place at the table for all of God’s children! Holler for love! Holler for justice! Holler for peace! I'm gonna holler because God is hollering and because we all need to holler sometime. I hope you'll holler, too.

Canadian Health Care: One Pastor's Experience

2009-09-04T11:12:00.005-04:00

by Rev. Bruce Ervin
Lead Pastor, Knox United Church
Toronto, Ontario, Canada

I am a citizen of the United States living in Canada. I am a member of the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ). For seven years (1980-1987) I served as the Pastor of Hillcrest Christian Church in Toronto, Ontario. Since then I have maintained my membership at Hillcrest while pastoring churches in The United Church of Canada.

I live in a country whose health care system is dedicated to delivering health care services to people who are sick. It doesn’t concern itself with making profits for big, privately owned insurance companies. It knows nothing of pre-existing conditions or co-payments or other factors which may prevent access to the health care that one needs. There’s no such thing as having too much income to be covered by Medicaid but too little income to afford one’s own health insurance. Everyone is covered, regardless of income.

Here is how it works. If you are sick, you go to the doctor. If you don’t have a family physician, you go to a walk-in clinic. Some people will go to the emergency room, but unless you have a genuine emergency requiring hospitalization, there is no need for this. There are plenty of walk-in clinics in Toronto and other Canadian communities.

Before you see the doctor, you must show your health card, which is issued by the provincial government. This proves that an account has been set up in your name by the provincial Ministry of Health. If it is your first visit to this particular doctor, you will be asked to fill out a form which asks standard questions about your medical history and that of your family, and what medications you may be on. Then you wait to see the doctor. Could be five minutes; could be half an hour or more. It depends on whether or not you have an appointment and how busy the doctor is that day.

The doctor will examine you, provide his/her diagnosis, prescribe medicine, send you for tests, refer you to a specialist. In other words, you will receive standard medical attention. When you’re done, you may check back with the receptionist to book another appointment or get forms for tests or a referral. But there is no exchange of cash. You don’t have to pay anything at the doctor’s office. No matter who you are. No matter what your income.

If you need to go back to your doctor for repeated visits while you are healing, no problem. No insurance company is going to tell you that you have exceeded some kind of quota on visits to the doctor. If you must visit a specialist for treatment for your condition, no problem. No insurance company is going to tell you that you aren’t covered for the treatment which that specialist is providing. If you must undergo a long series of tests, no problem. No insurance company is going to tell you that some tests are covered and some aren’t. Well, yes: occasionally there will be a test that isn’t covered by the publicly funded health plan. I had to pay $40.00 for such a test the other day. But the other nine tests which my doctor ordered were covered by our publicly funded universal health care system. And occasionally there will be a treatment that is not covered by our system. You’ll be out of pocket for most physiotherapy, for example. But you won’t be out of pocket for chemotherapy or treatment of a heart condition. Nor will the government make decisions about who is insured and who is not, who gets what treatments and who does not, who lives and who dies. If you are a resident of Canada, you are insured. If you have a medical condition, you are treated. If you move from one province to another, you are still covered by health insurance. The same rules and the same coverage apply to everyone, regardless of who you are, how much money you make or where you live.

Not only do you not have to pay anything at the doctor’s office; in most Canadian provinces you don’t have to pay insurance premiums. The cost of your health care is covered by your provincial and federal taxes. In Ontario (along with Alberta and British Columbia) we do pay a modest premium. But in this province it is simply collected with our provincial taxes. We all have to pay taxes. It is part of our responsibility as citizens of an advanced, progressive nation. It is a way of sharing the load of human care. With a private insurance plan, the larger the group that is insured, the lower the cost to each individual. In Canada, that large group is the entire population of the nation, all 34 million of us. That keeps the cost down for everyone. Canadians pay $3,700 per capita for health care, while citizens of the United States pay $6,700 per capita. It is something like when Jesus invited people to come and share their burdens with him (see Matthew 11:28-30). The yoke is easy and the burden is light when it is born by strong shoulders. Jesus’ shoulders are strong indeed. So is the combined strength of the shoulders of 34 million Canadians.

There is one problem: sometimes you do have to wait a while to see certain specialists and receive certain treatments. The less serious the condition, the longer you have to wait. I have just waited four months to see a rheumatologist so that I can have my aching knees examined. An inconvenience, but not life threatening. I have known parishioners who have waited a month to see an oncologist. That is unacceptable. But I have also known parishioners who have gone to their family doctor for a problem they’ve been having and have been in the oncologist’s office later that week. Doctors try to fit you in for rapid treatment according to the seriousness of your illness. The longer waits sometimes occur when the evidence suggests that your health condition is not putting you in immediate danger. If your body or intuition tell you otherwise, getting a second opinion or other forms of advocacy on your behalf can sometimes reduce the wait time. But the long wait is a problem. We need to train more doctors in Canada. And we may need to put more public funds into the health care system.

The priority of the Canadian health care system is to heal people. Therefore the funds are allocated so that doctors, nurses and technicians can do the work of healing that they’re called to do. The priority of private health insurance companies is to make money. Therefore funds are sometimes withheld from people needing healing because allocating maximum funds for maximum healing would erode their profit margin. When citizens of any nation see a doctor, our priority is healing. It is wonderful to have a health care system whose priorities match one’s own.

My Experience with Socialized Medicine

2009-09-01T16:19:00.009-04:00

By Rick Myer
Former Moderator of the Christian Church in Canada
Current Senior Fellow for Faith and Public Life in Canada,
The Disciples Center for Public Witness

My Mother’s family settled in Maryland in 1654 and Father’s 1730. When I emigrated to Canada 25 years ago, it was not politics or religious freedom that caused me to leave, but the cost of providing health care for my wife, children and myself.

We were spending 25% of our gross income on health care. Big-Blue only covered 80 % for major medical. Whenever we went to our doctor the bill was $50.00

That part of my experience is very familiar, and certainly not unique for Americans who are marginalized by the costs of protecting themselves. When I hear that there are 50,000,000
Americans who currently cannot afford health coverage, it makes me wonder why? What is unique about my experience is since January 20th, 1984, my health-care has been provided by a socialized-system, that recognizes the need to provide affordable, accessible health care for all 35,000,000 Canadians.

The health care system, that is so much a part of our way of life here, did not always exist. It has taken from 1947 to 1995 to create the current programme that we all benefit from and mutually share the cost of. FYI, here are a few dates in the evolution of our system;

1. 1947- Saskatchewan is the first province, (state in US terminology), to introduce a publicly funded health insurance plan to cover hospital services; however all medical costs outside hospitals are still privately paid and out of pocket.

2. 1957-The Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Act is introduced by the Federal Government. The impetus was public pressure, going back as far as 1939, for government assistance in covering health-care costs that are a result of disasters and ruinous social conditions. Federal resources were offered to all 10 provinces to share the costs of producing a Canada-wide health-care plan that would cover the costs of in-hospital service. The cost sharing was 50-50, with the federal government and provinces paying the same amount. Criteria were set by the feds provinces had to meet as pre-requisites to receive the federal grants. The criteria were: universality, portability (i.e. province to province) and publicly administered.

3. 1962- Medical service insurance is born in Saskatchewan. The government of Tommy Douglas, (Saskatchewan’s Premiere), requires doctors to collect their fees directly and solely from the government plan. All medical services are now paid by the government plan and no longer by private schemes. (BTW, Douglas was an ordained Baptist minister and Kiefer Sutherland’s grandfather.)

4. 1966- The Medical-Care Act, is passed by the Federal government. It extends health-care coverage to include doctors’ services outside hospital across Canada.

5. 1977- The federal-provincial arrangements established in the Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Services Act and the Medical Care Act by a new federal plan called the Federal Provincial Fiscal Arrangements and Established Programs Financing Act (EPF). This new methodology of cost sharing set up by the federal government is called block funding.

6. 1984- The Canada Health Act brings together and revises all previous legislation regarding health care. It re-establishes the criteria by which the provinces qualify for federal grants. Now there are five criteria replacing the original three, (see number two). They are comprehensiveness, public administration, universality, portability and accessibility. The CHA, based on concerns voiced by public hearings, provides a dollar-for-dollar penalty deducted from grants given to the provinces if the province allows extra-billing.

7. 1995 to present- The federal government announces yet another new federal formula for the provinces, the Canada Health and Social Transfer, (CHST). This block funding covers all annual support for health, education, and social services to the provinces.

It should be clear that our publicly funded health care system is not static and has taken 62 years to evolve to it’s current paradigm. All in all, we are happy with our system. You hear complaints about a lack of doctors, (higher concentration in cities), and waiting lists for physicians.

The experience of my family has been excellent. We have always had a doctor and never had one assigned to us. I have had minor surgeries twice, torn retina repair four times in the past three years and surgery for melanoma three years ago. My wife had her thyroid removed 7 years ago. We were referred by our family practitioner to a surgeon and were cared for within a week.

I will be 65 this month and my medicines are paid for with the exception of a dispensing fee my pharmacist is allowed to charge. Pharmaseutical companies are told what they can charge for medicines. They comply with out corporate wailing and make lots of money from federal coffers. Physicians are paid what the system will allow and hospitals are all not-for-profit and their costs regulated.

My parents moved to Canada ten years ago after I elected to sponsor them. Mother and dad both have had cataracts done here. Mom had had breast surgery twice, hip repair and long-term rhab, cardiac care and frequent visits to hospital. Half of their nursing home bill, is paid by the provoncial government. Their medicines are free as well after the $2.00 dispensing fee.

Americans seem to have a basic distrust of government. The term, "Keep government off our backs", is not heard north of the border as much south of the border. Usually our arms of government are called ministries, (rather than departments or agencies), and the heads ministers rather than generals, chiefs or administrators.

There are waiting times for specialists, MRI’s and other procedures. I suspect the reasons are twofold. Perhaps a shortage of specialists and diagnostic tools and the fact that all Canadians who need the help can have it and are able to access the help they need.

Americans with a sense of fairness must therefore be appalled that what is touted as the world’s best health care is not universal. Take your time and do it right, but we need to take the first step forward toute-suite!

Health Care: A Right and a Responsibility

2009-08-31T00:34:00.002-04:00

By Dr. Frank Thomas
Senior Servant
Mississippi Boulevard Christian Church
Memphis, TN

This past Sunday I stood and told my congregation that some health professionals believe that up to 70 per cent of all illness is lifestyle related. Virtually, each Sunday, I suggest to them that high blood pressure, diabetes, heart disease, cancer, etc. can all be affected by our choices of diet, exercise, stress, sleep patterns, and avoidance of a sedentary lifestyle. I advocate that health is our personal responsibility. Each of us increases or decreases our risk for disease and illness by our lifestyle choices. While the health care debate is raging, much of the discussion is based upon what happens after you contract illness and what kind of care one has a right to after they get sick. But I am raging for prevention. Given my genetic makeup, my choices have a direct bearing on when and how I will intersect with the health care industry. I live by this maxim: my health is my personal responsibility and within the circumference of diet, exercise, sleep, and stress reduction, I do all that I can to minimize disease and illness in my life.

It pains me that one of the most overlooked aspects of the present health care debate is the preventive aspects of disease and our personal responsibility to do all that we can to stave off illness. There is not much discussion about our habits of living that increase the risk that we will incur disease. Fundamentally, as a culture, we will not challenge how we eat, what we drink, sedentary lifestyles, devastating stress, and erratic sleep habits. We have only minimally challenged the food industry, what one author called, "Big Sugar," and "Big Beverage," in much the same vein as we learned the devastating effects and denials of "Big Tobacco." Because we will not address this corporately, then we are forced to spend trillions of dollars on health care. We are forced to fund our own societal negligence. In essence, the health care debate amounts to how we will fund our lack of societal responsibility to set the framework where people can make more effective and healthy personal responsibility lifestyle choices. Some want private industry, primarily through employer-based insurance programs, and others want governmental involvement to provide care for those who cannot afford it and keep the costs down.

As a minister of the gospel of Jesus Christ, and as a person of faith, I believe that health care is a right that is basic and fundamental to human existence as food for our stomachs, clothes for our bodies, and education for our brains. Every person has a moral right to safe, affordable, and efficient health care. There are people in our nation that die for a lack of access to health care and from my perspective this is social sin. It is a crime before God that in the richest nation in the world people die prematurely for a lack of health care and 47 million people do not have health care.

My argument is plain and simple – Medicare as a health option for everyone. Let me emphasize the word "option." People could choose to stay with their private or employer based health insurance. The sum total of my argument is this: according to my research, the government runs the Medicare program for an older, much sicker group of people and does it for about $7200 per person. The insurance industry provides health care for $6800 per person and it covers a much healthier and younger group of people. If Medicare were allowed to cover everyone at the age of 55, it would bring the cost of coverage down because the larger and younger pool of people that could be insured. A Congressional Budget Office study says that if young, healthier people sign up for Medicare, it would drive down costs and save a trillion dollars over ten years. Despite the claims that the "government cannot run anything," my informal research suggests that by and large most seniors, including my parents, are happy with Medicare. They choose their own doctor and hospital and Medicare runs smoothly and efficiently.

Unapologetically, I support "socialized" medicine. I want competition for "Big Insurance" and “Big Drug” companies. But, there are many myths and much anger in our nation now, and given our bailouts of "Big Banking," I am not sure that reason and the best plan will be adopted, if any plan will be adopted. But as a citizen of these wonderful United States, I exercise my right to free speech to support socialized medicine, even as I head to the gym to take responsibility for my health. Ultimately, my health is my personal responsibility within the circumference of my choices of diet, exercise, stress reduction, and sleep habits whatever form of health care is offered in this nation.

Choosing Sides: In Health Care, Jesus Sides with the Poor

2009-08-30T14:27:00.002-04:00

By Drew Smith
Director of International Programs
Henderson State University

In recent days I have received and heard comments from folks who are against health care reform because, as they say, "Jesus would not worry about health care reform because Jesus was not concerned with politics."

Most of these people stress that Jesus was about saving souls and that his message was strictly spiritual and focused on each person having a personal relationship with God. While this might be somewhat true, anyone who reads the Gospels should understand that Jesus' spiritual message of salvation was only a small part of his ministry.

Such comments by Christians point to one sad fact about American Christianity: Many Christians are ignorant to the social justice message of Jesus. Preferring to see Jesus in only spiritual terms, and his message as only about salvation and heaven, we often miss the significance of Jesus as a political figure.

But if we are to call ourselves Christian, we must broaden not only our understanding of Jesus' message as having social and political ramifications, we must also be open to how that message shapes how we live socially and politically today. Certainly this should influence how Christians should treat the current health care debate.

But in being a prophetic and political voice, Jesus stood in a line of tradition extending back to the vocation of Israel's prophets, who were called by God to confront the leaders of Israel with their injustices. God's messengers were not simply proclaiming a spiritual message that had nothing to do with how the powerful treated and marginalized the oppressed. Rather, the messages of the prophets were deeply political, and they spoke judgment against those who did not side with the poor.

Israel's leaders, who were to be the shepherds and caretakers of God's people, were charged by God to govern people with justice, to strengthen the weak, to feed the hungry and to shelter the displaced and homeless. These leaders were charged by God to be generous in their leadership, and they were judged by God when they kept their positions through political compromises with the rich and powerful. When Israel's leaders failed in their God-ordained responsibilities, the prophets served as the voice of God's judgment.

It is this same prophetic and political message spoken by the ancient prophets and particularly by Jesus that must continually challenge the political leaders of our own day. In many respects, our government leaders have failed in their faithful roles as shepherds of the people, for they have failed to feed the sheep, to strengthen the weak and to heal the sick. Like the political leaders judged by Jesus, they have cared more for themselves and their political agendas and careers.

At a time when our national leaders seem to be hesitating and playing political games over health care reform, we should be asking our leaders some very serious questions about their leadership. Why can't the richest country in the world provide quality health care for all? Why do many of our leaders side with big insurance and pharmaceutical companies instead of with those who need quality and affordable health care? Why do they listen to the lunatic fringe of the right wing misinformation machine, instead of standing firmly on what is right and just for the vulnerable of our nation?

Yet, we must not place all the blame on these leaders, for many of the citizens of this country, and tragically many who claim to be Christian, are also standing vehemently against any sort of reform. What baffles me is that these detractors claim to be Christian, and in some instances use Christianity as a basis for their stance.

For example, in one video clip of one of those circuses some call town hall meetings, there appears a woman pointing to her Bible as if to say that the Bible is against health care reform. In another one of those meetings, a man screams at Sen. Alan Specter, informing the senator that God will judge him if he supports health reform. Honestly, I am not sure these people read the same Bible as I do, and I am certain they do not follow the Jesus that we read about from that Bible.

If we read our Bible carefully, we will find that God is always on the side of the poor and vulnerable. If we are to be on God's side of the issue of health care, then we must side with the poor and vulnerable of this nation. We can and we must speak with greater authority, even if those who stand against health care reform continue to scream. We have the power to change things, if we only will.

Like Jesus, we need to have a sincere consciousness about the plight of people in our country, especially the vulnerable. We have a moral and godly responsibility to care about this issue and especially the people who are greatly affected by this problem. We must, if we claim to follow Jesus, speak up for the vulnerable of our nation; we must be the voice of the voiceless. If we are not, then we cannot claim to follow Jesus.

Drew Smith, an ordained Baptist minister, is director of international programs at Henderson State University in Arkadelphia, Ark. He blogs at Wilderness Preacher.

Health Care Reform: A Moral and Economic Imperative

2009-07-29T18:00:00.001-04:00

by Dr. Sharon E. Watkins
General Minister and President
Christian Church (Disciples of Christ)

You are no doubt aware of the debate on health care reform currently taking place in the United States. I recently attended a conference on health care, organized by and for religious leaders to help us understand the current discussion. We heard from health care policy experts, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Mark McClellan (who served in the Bush administration) and other political leaders. They assured us that health care reform can happen this year. But we, the faith community, must act to make it happen.

Jesus’ ministry was one of healing, bringing life to the dying, sight to the blind, wellness to the sick, and peace of mind to the troubled. Jesus’ witness was that abundant life includes physical, mental and spiritual wellness. The call upon us is to make this vision a reality for all.

Disciples have been involved in the work of healing at home and abroad for generations. The General Assembly has twice spoken out on the need of health care for all (1999, Cincinnati Resolution, 9995; 2007, Fort Worth, Resolution 0724). Congregations know what it is like to help families when they have fallen through the holes in our health care safety net.

I am writing because I believe this is the moment of a generation – when the United States can finally make decent, affordable health care accessible for all. The moral vision is there. The policy expertise is in place. It’s the political will that needs our support. Our legislators need our encouragement in the hard work of reform. I urge you – whichever of the possible options you might support – to contact your Senators and Representatives and ask them to achieve affordable, accessible, accountable, and inclusive health care this year.

In spite of media reports to the contrary, it appears legislators are close to making health care reform happen. There is growing agreement about what a renewed health care system might include: people who like their coverage would keep it, people who are uninsured or lose their coverage would have an affordable option to purchase it, no one would be excluded because of pre-existing conditions, long-term costs would be reduced by streamlining paperwork and emphasizing patient-focused, preventive and wellness care.

The big challenge is how to pay for it. Congress will figure that out, too. It’s going to take compromise, but they will get there if they keep at it. We need to urge them to keep at it.

I am inviting each one of you to get involved. Contact your Representative and Senators about health care reform by using this toll-free number: 888-797-8717. Visit the Disciples Health website (discipleshealth.org) for links to helpful information.

What we do together now can make a difference for all of us, and especially for those who do not have access to affordable health care, who stand in greatest need of our prayers, our support, and our advocacy.

A Step on the Path to Economic Justice

2009-07-24T15:27:00.007-04:00

by Ken Brooker Langston
Director, Disciples Justice Action Network
Coordinator, Disciples Center for Public Witness

Today, the minimum wage rises to $7.25 an hour, boosting more than 2 million hardworking employees one step up the ladder of economic opportunity.

The working poor needed this increase. Minimum-wage workers have fallen further and further behind the cost of living. In today's dollars, adjusting by the Consumer Price Index, the 1968 minimum wage would be equivalent to $10.08, half again as much as yesterday's minimum wage of $6.55. So compared to where we were yesterday, today's increase is a very welcome step in the right direction.

Nevertheless, this increase still falls short of what is needed. Nowhere in the United States - and certainly not in a generally high-cost state like Maryland - can anyone cover bare subsistence bills on the minimum wage, even at $7.25 an hour.

It is often said that the best anti-poverty program is a job. But what if that job locks the employee into poverty? Consider a relative of mine who works for minimum wage in a grocery store, as does her boyfriend. They'd like to get married and get a house together and live some small piece of the American dream. But they cannot even begin to afford it. And so, both of them live with their parents - who are on fixed incomes - and wait for what they hope will be a better day. But on the current minimum wage, it is doubtful that day will ever come.

To read the rest of this editorial, PLEASE CLICK HERE.

To find our more about Let Justice Roll, PLEASE CLICK HERE.

Diminished Public Witness

2009-07-05T09:15:00.000-04:00

By Dr. Michael Kinnamon
General Secretary
National Council of Churches

. . . Perhaps this is a good place to name other factors that have, as I see it, diminished the public witness of many of our churches. I will use my own denomination, the Disciples of Christ, as an example.

Faced with declining numbers and resources, leaders within the Disciples fear that controversy will further weaken the church. In response, we have, since the mid-1990s, eliminated virtually all national staff positions responsible for social justice ministries and are on the verge of eliminating General Assembly resolutions dealing with contemporary issues.

Within the Disciples, as in other mainline churches, there is an evident gap between the commitment of at least some leaders and many local church members. As a result, our assemblies will sometimes offer prophetic witness only to discover that the initiatives lack the broad support needed for church-wide action. That is one reason people have argued for the elimination of resolutions: They too often have been "feel good" pronouncements that involve little serious cost or effort.

Polarization within the church on issues of social concern, and inability to deal constructively with conflict, mean that advocacy is increasingly confined to special interest groups that can be ignored by the rest of the body. I belong to the Disciples Peace Fellowship; but, as I keep saying to whoever will listen, the church should not have a peace fellowship, it should be a peace fellowship.

And, to return to my basic point, the Disciples have shown little capacity for integrating social witness with worship, pastoral care, stewardship, or the other things the church does and is. In the words of theologian Lew Mudge, "…there seems little connection in the minds of church members between the moral convictions to which they bear witness and the nature of the ecclesial community in which these convictions are nurtured" -- which means that peace and justice can be relegated to one corner of the church. . . .

Excerpted from a speech given to the Wisconsin Council of Churches on March 10, 2009.

Considering Resolutions

2009-07-03T10:41:00.000-04:00

by William J. Nottingham
President Emeritus, Division of Overseas Ministries
Affiliate Professor of Mission, Christian Theological Seminary

On June 20, 1995, members of the Southern Baptist Convention meeting in Atlanta for their 150th anniversary voted overwhelmingly in support of a resolution to repent for racism, the defense of slavery, and opposition to the civil rights movement which typified their history. It was a witness that made page one of The New York Times as well as most other news media.

Disciples should take note that sometimes a resolution is good and necessary even when it is long overdue. As we discuss the appropriateness of resolutions, we must make sure that it will still be possible for representatives gathered in the international manifestation of the church to take a stand on issues of importance.

When leaders like Robert McNamara, U.S. Secretary of Defense from 1961 to 1968, publish a book admitting that the Vietnam War was a mistake, it is clear that Disciples had it right when we called for peace in Vietnam forty years ago. It is unthinkable that we might in any way apologize for this resolution being too "controversial."

A cursory survey of resolutions over the last fifty years shows a history of concern for evangelism, Christian unity, agriculture and farmworkers, urban crisis, use of alcohol, support for National and World Councils of Churches, etc. There was a time when support for the American Bible Society was called for in every annual International Convention!

But no controversial area appeared in resolutions more than racism. In 1956 at Des Moines, a survey on inclusive membership, to which 2053 congregations responded, reported that 191 said that persons of color were not welcome! In 1959 at Denver, a partial listing of fifteen resolutions on racism since 1936 was given, and a 2600 word statement of "principles and policies" on the Role of the Church in a Multiracial Society was voted in 1960 at Louisville. In 1969, the "Black Manifesto" began a series of a dozen resolutions calling for Christian responsibility in race relations and justice in society.

Even church-state relations and school prayer were issues for resolutions long ago. At Detroit in 1964, Dr. A.Dale Fiers is quoted telling a committee of Congress that there was a need for "a more adequate opportunity for national discussion and creative thinking...over a considerable period of time."

Many resolutions dealing with the mission of the church through the years were sponsored by what is now the Division of Homeland Ministries, recalling the debate in 1959 on "resolutions dealing with crucial issues on which the church must speak...."

Early resolutions on world issues were general, relating to peace, nuclear disarmament, changes in the Third World and refugees, many coming from the Disciples Peace Fellowship. It was the 1970's and 80's that brought a series of international resolutions on specific countries, human rights abuses, and U.S. foreign policy. This reflected the new era of partnership among churches in ecumenical mission, the restructure creating the Division of Overseas Ministries, and the new role of the United States in world affairs beginning with the war in Vietnam.

History has proven these resolutions well-founded and mostly vindicated in time: normalization of relations with Vietnam and China; recognition of Panama's sovereignty over its own canal; the dictatorship in Paraguay; torture in Brazil; the disappearance of thousands in Argentina (including dropping prisoners in the ocean from helicopters); the brutal reign of Pinochet; the iron rule of the KMT in Taiwan; the oppression under Marcos in the Philippines; the dictatorship of Park Chung Hee in South Korea; the US and white South African alliance with Unita in Angola and Renamo in Mozambique, etc.; support for Nelson Mandela and the struggles of the African National Congress; the call for divestment in South Africa; support for the churches of Eastern Europe and the importance of Christian unity across political boundaries; the call for peace with justice between Israelis and Palestinians; opposition to U.S. support of the contras in Nicaragua; opposition to arms for killers of Catholic missionaries in El Salvador; the need for an international call for the reunification of Korea; and the need for U.S. and international response to the ethnic extermination taking place in Bosnia-Herzegovina.

Many of these resolutions were ahead of their time. All were important, addressing life and death situations in the world mission of the church. They were requested of the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) in the United States and Canada by churches in the countries concerned. Their purpose was not a political agenda but the effect of political situations on people's lives, especially vast numbers of the poor and oppressed. It is not true that such actions and the ministries related to them could have been done by humanitarian organizations. They were a witness to the unity of the Church of Jesus Christ and said to the larger community that there is a moral authority in Scripture and faith that transcends the interests of economic and political power.

Perhaps the world situation has changed enough to require a different kind of response. Undoubtedly we need a better system for discussion, debate, and effective witness. But speaking out on important issues through our resolutions has been a good use of our time together--and we have a similar responsibility for the Church of the future.

The Long Trail to Irrelevance

2009-07-02T09:59:00.000-04:00

by Charles Bayer
Theologian-Activist and a co-founder of
Disciples Justice Action Network (DJAN)

Like many other Disciples, my outlook on the relationship between the Christian gospel and the world has been formed by our church. As a green, uninformed, naïve, young minister I was opened up by my participation in denominational life, both in my contacts with our Department of Church and Society and in our General Assemblies. It was in the clearly articulated stance of the church on civil rights, violence, economic justice and a score of other issues that I discovered the critical relevance of what I had learned in Sunday School and summer youth conferences. I knew where the church stood because it said so.

And then things began to change. The Department of Church and Society was abandoned. Increasingly new hesitant voices muted our social commitments. It came to a head a decade ago when instead of taking a stand on the full inclusion of gay and lesbian persons we decided to deep-six the subject by appointing a commission to discern the matter. Nothing has been said since that side step was made. We simply discerned it out of existence. While we could still muster a majority against war, for instance, increasingly angry voices began to warn us that to take a stand on such serious matters was divisive.

The 2007 General Assembly did affirm our church’s opposition to our current wars. Subsequently, however, a substantial Oklahoma congregation not only objected to the position taken by the General Assembly, but also to all Assembly resolutions on critical social issues.

Having lost our cutting edge, we are now were faced with a sturdy effort to mute our voice even further. In Indianapolis we will be presented with a move by our General Board and our GMP, which will dramatically change the way we relate church and world. The proposal essentially does away with our ability to take positions on the critical issues. Had these rules been in force during our earlier days we would not have committed ourselves to civil rights, the end of Jim Crow laws, world peace, opposition to the war against Vietnam, support of farm workers, the rights of women and a multitude of other matters the society now takes for granted. We would have studied them, but not said, "This is where our church stands."

As I understand it, the proposed revision of our rules essentially involves the following:

* Only four issues can come before any General Assembly, and the General Board will decide which four of all those submitted will go to the Assembly. All issues shall become the property of the General Board, and only the General Board can forward an issue to the Assembly.
* Six years later an issue can be submitted again.
* When each of these four matters reaches the floor of the Assembly, the GMP will make an initial pastoral presentation.
* The GMP will then select the subsequent speakers.
* If the matter finally comes to a vote, it will take a two-thirds majority simply to offer an invitation for action. (thus a minority will control the decision)

On the positive side, there will be more opportunity to discuss these matters throughout every level of church life. But the church will not come to a decision even if there is a two-thirds vote in favor. There will only be produced an invitation to action by those who care to do so. The church, however, will not go on record saying, "This is who we are and what we stand for." We will not have decided to be for or against anything.

Being reduced to an "it might be this and it might be that" perspective will mollify a great many and reduce tensions, making our Assemblies less contentious. Nevertheless, I believe it will be just one more step into irrelevance in a denomination that has a dynamic past but faces a socially irrelevant future. No young minister or serious member of our churches will be able to say, "Here is where my church stands."

The decision will be made at our General Assembly in Indianapolis. Those of us who believe this is another step into the ecclesial shadows must do what we can to defeat this move. I’ll be there ready for a vigorous debate, and trust many of you will come prepared to take on this regressive move.

An Evangelical Response to the Murder of George Tiller

2009-06-05T13:56:00.005-04:00

by Susannah Clark

Public Theology Researcher
The Evangelical Alliance (England)

The murder of US late term abortion doctor George Tiller last Sunday, has sparked the debate again between the pro-choice and pro-life camps on both sides of the Atlantic. The murder suspect, Scott Roeder, was a member of a Christian group, albeit an extreme right wing militia group, prompting a Guardian headline, Terror in the name of Jesus.

Sadly, this is not the first violent incident in the US over this issue: to date 15,125 violent acts have been committed towards abortion providers, many carried out supposedly in the name of Jesus. Speaking on Tiller’s murder, Barack Obama said, "However profound our differences as Americans over difficult issues such as abortion, they cannot be resolved by heinous acts of violence." I for one certainly agree with that. And as many commentators have noted, the suspect may have viewed Tiller as a murderer, but murdering the murderer on the basis that you think he is a murderer is surely a contradiction.

While researching this article, I read some stories of women who have had late term abortions. As I read, I felt overwhelming compassion. Most of these are stories of women who have to make agonizing decisions, stories of foetuses with horrendous disabilities, unlikely to live more than a few days, stories of women who longed for a baby. Pro-life arguments against the decision to abort would include that to abort the foetus is to pre-judge God and that only God has the right to give life and take it away. Yet these women have found themselves in harrowing situations that I would not wish on anyone.

Jesus’ actions towards people though were not based on whether or not he endorsed their decisions and behaviour, yet sometimes we seem to think that ours can be. Jesus told us very clearly not to judge people, to examine carefully our own conduct, (Matthew 7:1) and equally clearly, he tells us that we are to love our neighbour (Matthew 22:39). Yet often we rush to make judgments and treat people depending on whether we think they’re right or wrong. In this case, such disagreement has led to violence, murder, abuse and hatred: at both Tiller and women attending his clinic. Such acts have no regard for their common humanity, as people made in the image of God. We may not carry out murder and violence, but how do we treat people whose actions or points of view we disagree with?

Jesus wasn’t afraid to tell people he disagreed with them and he did so out of love, to show them a better way. Sometimes they didn’t respond, but it didn’t mean he ceased to love them. He comforted the hurting, healed the broken, bound up the broken hearted, loved those who felt alone and abandoned, wept with those who were suffering and offered them hope and life. If we believe in a God of love, compassion and mercy, let’s be the first to demonstrate that to people: no matter what they’ve done, or what situation they are facing.

A Jewish Renewal Understanding of the State of Israel

2009-06-02T18:51:00.003-04:00

by Rabbi Michael Lerner
Editor of Tikkun Magazine
Leader of the Network of Spiritual Progressives

Jews did not return to Palestine in order to be oppressors or representatives of Western colonialism or cultural imperialism. Although it is true that some early Zionist leaders sought to portray their movement as a way to serve the interests of various Western states, and although many Jews who came brought with them a Western arrogance that made it possible for them to see Palestine as "a land without a people for a people without a land," and hence to virtually ignore the Palestinian people and its own cultural and historical rights, the vast majority of those who came were seeking refuge from the murderous ravages of Western anti-Semitism or from the oppressive discrimination that they experienced in Arab countries. The Ashkenazi Jews who shaped Israel in its early years were jumping from the burning buildings of Europe--and when they landed on the backs of Palestinians, unintentionally causing a great deal of pain to the people who already lived there, they were so transfixed with their own (much greater and more acute) pain that they couldn't be bothered to notice that they were displacing and hurting others in the process of creating their own state.

Their insensitivity to the pain that they caused, and their subsequent denial of the fact that in creating Israel they had simultaneously helped create a Palestinian people most of whom were forced to live as refugees (and now, their many descendents still living as exiles and dreaming of "return" just as we Jews did for some 1800 plus years), was aided by the arrogance, stupidity and anti-Semitism of Palestinian leaders and their Arab allies in neighboring states who dreamt of ridding the area of its Jews and who, much like the Herut "revisionists" who eventually came to run Israel in the past twenty years, consistently resorted to violence and intimidation to pursue their maximalist fantasies.

By the time Palestinians had come to their senses and acknowledged the reality of Israel and the necessity of accommodating to that reality if they were ever to find a way to establish even the most minimal self-determination in the land that had once belonged to their parents and grandparents it was too late to undermine the powerful misperception of reality held by most Jews and Israelis that their state was likely to be wiped out any moment if they did not exercise the most powerful vigilance. Drenched in the memories of the Holocaust and in the internalized vision of themselves as inevitably powerless, Jews were unable to recognize that they had become the most powerful state in the region and among the top 20% of powerful countries in the world--and they used this sense of imminent potential doom to justify the continuation of the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza for over thirty years.

The occupation could only be maintained by what become an international scandal--the violation of basic human rights of the occupied, the documented and widespread use of torture, the systematic destruction of Palestinian homes, the grabbing of Palestinian lands to allow expansion of West Bank settlements that had been created for the sole purpose of ensuring that no future accommodation with Palestinians could ever allow for a viable Palestinian state in the West Bank (since, as many settlers argued, the land had been given to the Jewish people by God, hence precluding any rights to Palestinians), and the transformation of Israeli politics from a robust democracy into a system replete with verbal violence that sometimes spilled over into real violence (most notably, the assassination of prime minister Rabin because of his pursuit of peace and reconciliation with the Palestinian people).

The distortions in Israeli society required to enable the occupation to continue have been yet another dimension of the problem: first, the pervasive racism towards Arabs, manifested not only in the willingness to blame all Palestinians for the terrorist actions of a small minority but also in the willingness to treat all Israeli citizens of Palestinian descent as second class citizens (e.g. in giving lesser amounts of financial assistance to East Jerusalem or to Israeli Palestinian towns than to Jewish towns); second, in the refusal to allocate adequate funds to rectify the social inequalities between Ashkenazi and Sephardic/Mizrachi Jews; third in the willingness of both Labor and Likud to make electoral deals with ultra-orthodox parties intent on using state power to enforce religious control over Israelis' personal lives and to grab disproportionate state revenues--in order that they could count on these religious parties to back whatever their engagement or disengagement plans in the West Bank.

Perhaps the greatest victim of all these distortions has been Judaism itself. Judaism has always had within it two competing strands, one that affirmed the possibility of healing the world and transcending its violence and cruelty, the other that saw "the Other" (be that the original inhabitants of the land, who were to be subject to genocidal extermination, or later Greeks, Romans, Christians, or now Arab) as inherently evil, beyond redemption, and hence deserving of cruelty and violence. The latter strand, which I call "settler Judaism" because it reflects the ideology of settling the land that reaches its fulfillment as much in the Book of Joshua (and in some quotes in Torah) as in the reckless acts of Ariel Sharon and the current manifestations of the National Religious Party in Israel, was actually a very necessary part of keeping psychologically healthy in the long period of Jewish history when we were the oppressed and we were being psychologically brutalized by imperial occupiers or by our most immoral "hosts" in European societies.

But today, when Jews are the rulers over an occupied people, or living in Western societies and sharing the upper crust of income and political power with our non-Jewish neighbors, the supremacist ideas of Settler Judaism create a religious ideology that can only appeal to those stuck in the sense that we are eternally vulnerable. For a new generation of Jews, bred in circumstances of power and success, a Judaism based on fear and demeaning of others, a Judaism used as a justification for every nuance of Israeli power and occupation, becomes a Judaism that has very little spiritual appeal. Ironically, the need to be a handmaiden to Israel distorts Judaism and causes a "crisis of continuity" as younger Jews seek spiritual insight outside their inherited tradition.

Yet Judaism has another strand, what I and others call "Renewal Judaism," which started with the Prophets and has reasserted itself in every major age of Jewish life, insisting that the God of Torah is really the Force of Healing and Transformation, and that our task is not to sanctify existing power relations but to challenge them in the name of a vision of a world of peace and justice. Perhaps the greatest danger that Israel poses to the Jewish people is the extent to which it has helped Jews become cynical about their central task: to proclaim to the world the possibility of possibility, to affirm the God of the universe as the Force that makes possible the breaking of the tendency of people to do to others the violence and cruelty that was done to them, the Force that makes possible the transcendence of "reality" as it is so that a new world can be shaped. If Israel is ever to be healed, it will only be when it is able to reject this slavish subordination to political realism and once again embrace the transformative spiritual message of renewal.

Mourning for Dr. George Tiller

2009-06-01T21:17:00.002-04:00

by The Rev. Carlton Veazey
President and CEO
Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice

Today, we mourn the death of a humble, courageous man who dedicated his life to justice, liberty and freedom - Dr. George Tiller. George Tiller was murdered yesterday in his church, a place of peace and worship. This good doctor put his life on the line every day to make sure that safe, legal abortion was available to women in the greatest need, women with late-term complications and emergencies, who often had nowhere else to turn. He did so in respect for each woman he served and in the service of a great and noble cause - preserving the promise of reproductive freedom for all women.

Dr. Tiller had a powerful vision that sustained his daily actions of courage. In a letter thanking RCRC for our support during the hate-filled assault on his Wichita clinic in the summer of 2001, he wrote: "Together, we will create a society and a paradigm shift so that every pregnancy is an invited guest in the woman's body and a welcome addition to her family."

Dr. Tiller was a military man. He was proud of his service to his country and to the cause of freedom - and he felt that providing abortion services was part of this country's commitment to upholding women's rights and democracy. He hung an American flag at the clinic every day. After that summer assault on his clinic, he suggested to an RCRC staff member that those who harassed and threatened abortion providers and women needing services were tyrants - and he felt that in providing services, no matter the danger and difficulty, he was standing up to tyranny.

George Tiller was continually harassed - his home, church and clinic were picketed, his clinic was burned down, he was shot in both arms by a demonstrator who is now jailed, and he was recently targeted for investigation only to be acquitted by a jury just a few months ago. But he never backed down.

George Tiller began providing abortion services in the 1970s. We cannot say with certainty what motivated and inspired this man to persevere, despite almost daily threats. Perhaps it was the model of his father, also a doctor, who provided abortion services before it was legal to do so. After his father's untimely death in a plane crash, George Tiller took over the practice. Some women patients began to ask discreetly, "Are you going to help us out like your father did?" And so he did. This strong family connection is in the great tradition of American values.

Women in the greatest medical need came to Dr. Tiller's clinic in Wichita; women in the final weeks of pregnancy, with crushing medical conditions were among his patients. His clinic was a warm, welcoming place. Once past the gauntlet of angry demonstrators, women found a compassionate staff, a well-run medical practice, and the sense they were respected and safe.

Reformation Lutheran Church, Dr. Tiller's church, also sought to be a safe place for all people. In a statement yesterday, church members wrote: "...we reject any notion that violence against another human being is an acceptable way to resolve differences over any issue. We must always strive to engage in peaceful discussion. Our faith calls us to this. Our humanity demands it."

With members of Dr. Tiller's church, we pray for healing and peace to be restored. We pray for Dr. Tiller's family, for the clinic staff, for patients and their families, for friends, and for our country.

We pray for George Tiller - a true American hero, who lived his life according to his values and his faith, who was selfless and fearless in the line of danger to the very end.

Two Holidays--and some reflections on war and peace

2009-05-17T00:00:00.002-04:00

by the Rev. Dr. William Chris Hobgood, President of the DISCIPLES CENTER for PUBLIC WITNESS and former General Minister and President of the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ).

This Sunday is bracketed by two holidays, one in the U.S. and the other in Canada. Although not officially celebrated as a federal holiday, Saturday was Armed Forces Day in the United States. It's a day set aside for showing gratitude and appreciation for all the women and men in uniform who work so hard to keep our nation strong and free. This includes our many chaplains who bravely, compassionately and intelligently minister to those serving in the different branches of the military. Whatever over-heated and hyperbolic anti-war rhetoric may sometimes suggest, neither our troops nor our chaplains leave their minds or their hearts behind when they enter the service of our nation. But they do, for the most part, give up their right to challenge the military decisions of our civilian government. That's why it is even more incumbent on those of us who are civilians to question, debate, and, if necessary, oppose any decisions that may unnecessarily endanger their lives or put them in harm's way.

Personally, I have always believed that the best way to support our troops in Iraq is to get them out of there as soon and as responsibly as we can--and I am glad to have a Commander-in-
Chief who agrees. But wherever we stand on a particular war--or war in general--one thing seems clear: we must always honor those who have served their country by supporting their families while they are away and by being there for them when they return home, doing whatever we must to heal their wounds and help them transition back into a stable and meaningful civilian life. As a nation we owe it to them. And as a church that ministers to the sick and seeks to bring wholeness to a broken world, we are called to this form of service.

Tomorrow (Monday), our Canadian sisters and brothers will be celebrating Victoria Day, a holiday named after the English monarch who reigned over history's largest worldwide empire at its zenith. Although it is now the official day on which Canadians celebrate the birthday of the current Queen, the name nevertheless reminds us of Empire and the dangers and injustices that accompany this approach to other nations. It also gives us the opportunity to consider the difference between a world power and an Empire: the former influences world affairs while the latter tends to get bogged down in the internal affairs of other nations. This difference just might be something worth thinking about in relation to U.S. foreign policy and our situation in Iraq.

As I thought about these two holidays in this way, I could not help but also think about the resolution at the last Assembly that has caused so much controversy in our denomination: Sense-of-the-Assembly Resolution 0728, "The Church's Response to the War in Iraq." Whatever its shortcomings, this resolution, in my opinion, affirms two authentically Christian responses to war: First, in line with the emphases of Armed Forces Day, it asks our churches and their members to "lift up the men and women of the armed forces . . . for their courage and sacrifice and hold them and their families in our prayers." And secondly, in relation to the Canadian holiday named for the monarch who ruled over the world's largest Empire, this resolution challenges us to think about--and pray about--whether any foreign policy based on Empire and war is consistent with the gospel of the Kingdom (reign of God), the ministry of reconciliation, and the Biblical vision of shalom that was preached by Jesus Christ (the Prince of Peace) and entrusted to his disciples--we who are called and blessed to be peacemakers.

In my opinion, these questions of war and peace should be taken seriously by all Christians--and none more so than Disciples of Christ. After all, are we not "a movement for wholeness in a fragmented world"?

The First Hundred Days

2009-04-29T16:29:00.001-04:00

by the Rev. Jim Wallis
President and CEO,
Sojourners and Call to Renewal.

In the first 100 days, President Obama has made unprecedented strides and set promising priorities in two key areas--expanding economic opportunity at home and forging a new role for the U.S. in the world.

In regard to poverty, the president and his administration have shown a clear commitment to ensure that poor and low-income people are not left out of the economic recovery plan and the budget. There has not been a president or a budget I have seen in my lifetime that has so carefully considered the people Jesus called "the least of these." These early steps show that poverty reduction will be a commitment of the Obama administration, both in word and deed. This can be accomplished through commitments in his budget and stimulus plan to repair a neglected safety net for those who find themselves without jobs, key investments in infrastructure that will create new jobs and opportunities, especially green jobs, finally achieving health care reform, and a long-term plan for ensuring that our schools and institutions of higher education are the best in the world. His budget’s commitment to foreign aid will make sure that the progress we have seen on reducing extreme poverty across the world will continue in a time when we could easily backslide.

Regarding our role in the global community, from the moment he was inaugurated President Obama changed the image of the U.S. in the eyes of the world. He has made substantive policy changes and set priorities that are forging a new global role for our country. First, he has reached out to the Muslim world and begun to build the bridges and understanding that will be necessary for peace, security, and prosperity in our world. Second, he has clearly and unequivocally stated his commitment to ensuring that torture is not acceptable and will no longer be a tool of U.S. foreign policy. Third, his global commitment to a world free of nuclear weapons is a compelling vision for which we have already waited too long, and an early commitment to that goal offers the opportunity for serious progress over the course of his administration. Fourth, early steps in foreign policy have shown a preference for development and diplomacy over mere military action, and we urge that emphasis to continue in Afghanistan rather than increasing combat troops. By dropping the deceptive and misleading "War on Terror," we have new opportunities for progress and peace.

On values, vision, principles, and direction, President Obama’s first 100 days have offered some real encouragement to many of us in the faith community. But the most important results are yet to come. For that, it will take a vital, new partnership that includes both the support of the faith community when the Obama agenda is consistent with our own, and challenge when our prophetic integrity requires it — a role that this new president has already affirmed.

Health Care: Advocating for Patients

2009-04-08T19:50:00.007-04:00

by the Rev. Amos Acree, R.N.

Senior Fellow on Congregationally Based Health Care Advocacy

Disciples Center for Public Witness

With the increasing complexity of our health care system, especially, but not limited to, the managed care segment, individuals feel more left out of the loop. Many of us in the early "boomer" segment and older remember a single family doctor who took care of most of our health care needs. That world no longer exists. And for many folk it never did. But for those of us who could rely on a single person to "manage" our care, we knew we had someone we could turn to for answers to questions about need care. But now, even those of us with decent health insurance coverage are often left with no one to turn to for answers—our health care providers often don't have the time, and often the answers to our concerns. With specialization, many of us regularly see several different medical providers, who may or may not be acquainted with the other conditions we have, and who surely don’t know all the side effects and warnings of the many different medicines we take. And who knows what your insurance will cover, or how much, or what conditions must be met.

One of the roles of a Parish Nurse (the more recent nomenclature of the American Nurses’ Association is "Faith Community Nurse") is to help individuals discover options for needed services, be advocates for them as needed, and to help them understand not only their condition, but to find ways to work toward wellness. Many folk feel helpless when they confront the health care system. And as well-meaning as most health care providers are, they are often overwhelmed by the caseload and bureaucratic demands.

One example I have discovered as a pastor visiting folk in hospitals concerns discharge planning. With the need to return patients to their homes or other institutions of care, most people aren’t aware of the right to understand fully their plan of care after discharge. But hospital discharge planners are often overworked, and may not be able to give as much attention to each individual as the patients and/or families would like. And floor nurses don’t always have the extra time either. But no one should be sent home without a plan of care they understand and agree to. Who can make sure the patient and his/her family do understand, rather than just saying “yes” so they can get out of the hospital? Is the needed equipment delivered before the patient will need it? Are the medicines at hand, and do we know what they are for, and do they interfere with other medicines some other doctor ordered? When will the home care nurse be there?

Another problem concerns patients (and often their families) who don’t think they "need" help. We have become so caught up in the "pull yourself up by your own bootstraps" ideology, that it is seen as a sign of weakness to have to accept help. The congregational health advocate can work with individuals and families to show them how this help will assist in their healing process, as well as provide relief for family caregivers. It also reminds us that God did not create us as isolated individuals, who are only fully human if they stand alone against the world. But we are part of a community that cares for one another, and needs each other. This is especially true for those of us caregivers who still must work, as well as take care of loved ones who need increased care and attention. It was truly a blessing for me to have such people when my wife was recovering from unexpected disability due to life-threatening condition. It enabled me to continue to do what I needed to do outside the home as appropriate, and feel that I was not abandoning my wife. It also gave her the opportunity to affirm the work of others with her.

Faith Community (Parish) Nurses can provide the advocacy individuals increasingly need in our health care world. And especially as our congregations grow older (as do the majority of our citizens), the health care needs of our members will increase. For those of us without much knowledge of how our health care system works, an advocate can truly assist in attaining wellness and wholeness.

The High Ways and the Bayh Ways

2009-03-12T21:17:00.005-04:00

by the Rev. Mmoja Ajabu
Associate Advocacy Team Leader and
Coordinator of the Indianapolis Office
of the Disciples Center for Public Witness

This week the Wall Street Journal printed an editorial by Indiana Senator Evan Bayh. Senator Bayh had organized several other “so called” moderate democratic senators to oppose President Obama’s budget request. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, the Senator from Kentucky, called Bayh’s editorial “insightful.” According to the Wall Street Journal when asked about the Republicans' praise of his op-ed article, Bayh said he doesn't have a problem if Republicans were "honestly agreeing with me," but he does if "they were just using my point of view to score cheap political points." Evan, you know both of these points are true. Why are you organizing democratic senators against the President? Why are you allowing yourself to be used to undermine his policies? And not only are you doing it personally, but you have organized other Senators so that they can be used to undermine the President. Let’s look at some of the stances of your members.

Nebraska Sen. Ben Nelson, one of the most conservative Democrats in the Senate said “I have major concerns about trying to raise taxes in the midst of a downturn of the economy.” “On the one hand, you’re trying to stimulate the economy. On the other hand, you’re trying to keep money from going into taxpayers’ pockets. It’s very difficult to make that logic work.” Senator Nelson’s position begs the question, on whom are the taxes being raised. The answer is that taxes will be raised on those who make $250,000 dollars or more per year. Senator Nelson sounds like Rush Limbaugh! Senator Bayh have you become a “ditto head?” You have stated publicly that you think that President Obama should slow down, don’t move too fast. This sounds so much like the Dixiecrats, who were nothing but democrats, in the south when we were fighting for passage of the 1964 voting rights bill. They were counseling the nation to slow down on giving Black people the vote; they didn’t want to move to fast. The issue then was race. The issue now is economics. It appears that you have sided with the rich at the expense of the poor.

Senator Bayh: I saw you in Elkhart, Indiana. You heard directly the pain that the economic downturn is causing in that city. Elkhart has the highest unemployment rate in the nation. A couple of weeks ago, food had to shipped in so they could feed their families. This wasn’t people starving in Zimbabwe, this is in your home state; the state of Indiana. Those people represent the least of these. Your present position is neglectful, and against the economically depressed people in Elkhart. If you agree with Sen. Ben Nelson then you agree to make the fat cats fatter, by cutting their taxes. If anyone can stand a tax increase it’s the fat cats. Even Jayson agrees with that. They have so much money that paying an increase in taxes is just another expense that has no effect on their ability to maintain their lifestyle. Raising the taxes on the wealthy will raise much needed revenue for the country. Senator Bayh: What are you doing? Are you mad because President Obama did not pick you for Vice? What is it? Surely you are not supporting to give to the fat cats at the expense of the poor, are you?

Senator Bayh, let me assure you that we here in Indiana have a very close eye on you. You are very popular here in Indiana, and you should know that Bart Peterson, the previous Mayor, was also popular in Indianapolis. The state legislature increased people’s property taxes that caused bills to be two and three times what they were previously. Bart in this climate raised the people’s income taxes by 65%. People were mad. Bart chose the city’s budget desires over the people’s ability to own their property. Bart found out that when you side with the rich in economically challenging times then the people will rise up and let you know that you are not that popular. Bart’s campaign coffers was millions while Ballard’s was a few thousand dollars. Still, the people rose up and defeated Bart.

Senator, do not sleep on that lesson. You cannot take positions that hurt the people in Elkhart and the rest of the state and think your popularity will pull you through. You must know that you are being watched with a very critical eye. It would not be in your interest to undercut what President Obama is trying to do for the little people. Siding with the fat cats on Wall Street is more of the same. It is the people on Main Street that vote for you. Do not support the fat cats getting fatter. If you want to oppose the President then push for him to give the money directly to the people on Main Street. Let the people on Wall Street make their profit off of the people’s consumption on Main Street. Support the President not giving the banks or AIG one more dime. Give the money to Main Street. Our consumption will kick start the economy. It is time for a change. Indiana for the first time in a long time voted for change. Change is in the air. Surely you feel it. If not, you will. Thank you for listening to AjabuSpeaks.

Consensus is good; leadership is better.

2009-02-11T23:29:00.003-05:00

by The Rev. Mmoja Ajabu
Associate Advocacy Team Leader
Coordinator of the Indianapolis O'ffice
Disciples Center for Public Witness

Mr. President, First let me thank you for the opportunity to address you and the world at the town hall meeting you held in Elkhart, Indiana on this Monday the 9th day of February. I just got through listening to you press conference. It occurs to me that you are trying to bring about a consensus with people who do not want to come together. I and the people are in full agreement with you that a change has got to come to Washington. However, that change will come through your leadership, not through trying to get certain people in Congress to do what is good for the nation. Don’t worry about leading Congress, lead the people. I don’t think anyone would argue that the nation needs to come together now more so than at any other time in its history. Yet, because people in Congress want the power that you now have, they will display unnecessary divisive behavior to make difficult your task to govern. Mr. President, It is time for a change. Those intransigents are supposed to be representatives of the people, but they are not the people. Go to the people. And, in my humble opinion, this is how you have to go.

With all due respect, what you are offering the people in your stimulus package is not enough. You heard the gregarious ovation that the little people gave my words at the town hall meeting when I stated to send the money to their mailbox. The reason why they responded so overwhelmingly is because I was talking about a stimulus package that made their well being the priority. You must be the champion of their well being. To my understanding, you are offering a $100 dollar increase per month on unemployment benefits for those who are eligible to get unemployment. Plus you have extended the time that the unemployed can get unemployment. In addition you are going to put an extra $1000 dollars in the little man and woman’s pocket. Some, who have children in school, will get $2500 to help offset school costs. Mr. President, all of this is good but not good enough. The little person is out of work, about to lose their home, and don’t have the money to put a child in school so that they can get the $2500 dollar rebate. And here in Indiana, to make things worse, property taxes are out the roof. If you compare the amount of money that you are giving to the little people to that money that you propose to give to the fat cats the money you propose to give to the little people pales in comparison. Mr. President, give the money to the people and make the stipulation that the people who have homes in foreclosure they must pay off their mortgages with the money. This way the debt of the bank and the little person is satisfied. In other words, give the money to the banks through the borrower. This is trickle up economics. If you propose this in your stimulus package the little people will follow your leadership to the end of time and make their so-called representatives do the same. You got to take the bulk of the stimulus to the people.

Quit having those press conferences. Those people represent special interests and the fat cats. Let them get their stories by following you to town hall meetings while you talk to the people. Just like your campaign slogan was “yes we can” now your governing slogan should be “For the People.” Give the money to stimulate the economy through the people. You should still give business tax relief. Now business has incentive to stay in the country and will make a profit by the people who no longer have a mortgage payment. With the people being out from under the debt of a mortgage they will consume money on other things. This spending becomes the engine that will drive the economy and cause it again to begin to grow. Also stipulate that the money given to the little people that 10 per cent must be put in a savings account that cannot be touch for two years. This plan removes the mortgage debt of the bank and the little person. Plus you make the little person save so the banks have more money to lend. If the people want to make a major purchase then the people will be borrowing their own money that is held and invested by the banks. Make the money trickle up, not trickle down. If you support the little people now that you are elected, because the little person elected you, the little people will make it much easier for you to govern. It is noble that you want to bring everyone together. And they should come together. But because of their thirst for the power that is now yours they will intentionally thwart your noble efforts. Consensus is good, but leadership is better. Lead the country by taking care of its people.

Once you have lifted the debt off of the banks through the people then give money to state and local governments to rebuild America’s infrastructure. Now you will put Americans back to work. However, rebuilding the infrastructure is a temporary fix. The key for America to be a leader is it has got to be innovative. Education stimulates innovation. Spare no money to schools that show the will to educate innovative students. Economic success won’t happen overnight, but by golly it will happen!! The key is to stimulate the economy through the people. The people want to have a consensus. The people want to come together. Your leadership is the key to the people coming together. You must consider the fat cats. However, the way to consider them is through the well being of the people. You are the President. Make those reporters at the press conference address you as Mr. President. They must recognize the office you hold and the power and responsibility that comes with it. YOU ARE THE PRESIDENT!! It is time for a change. The government must be placed back into the hands of the people. The government must put the well being of the people first. The last regime put the fat cat first. That philosophy got the country where it is today. It is time for a change from fat cat being first and little people being last. We elected you to lead the change. Mr. President, lead the change.

If you put us first, you will not have any trouble out of representatives in Washington. It is still us who cast the votes. If the present representation doesn’t want to get in line then in two years we will send you a whole new crew. Just put our well being first. We will make it easier for you to govern. You are The President. We are the people. In a democracy the power rests with the people. We will exercise our power to support you if you will put our well being first. It is alright to help the fat cat but put the little people’s well being first. You must govern for the people. We will give our power to you in return.

The government must be given back to the people. You, Mr. President are the man we chose to do so. We pray that God will continue to order our steps.

Thank you for listening to AjabuSpeaks.

The Rev. Mmoja Ajabu is the Minister of Social Witness at Light of the World Christian Church in Indianapolis, IN. He is also the Associate Advocacy Team Leader of The Disciples Center for Public Witness and the Coordinator of The CENTER's Indianapolis office.

Let's Practice What She Preached

2009-01-30T15:24:00.002-05:00

by Charles Bayer
Theologian-Activist and a co-founder of
Disciples Justice Action Network (DJAN)

We are all honored by the President’s selection of our General Minister and President, Sharon Watkins, to deliver the sermon at the traditional day-after-the inauguration service at the Washington Cathedral. We Disciples may be justly proud, but the honor goes to her. And a mighty sermon it was!

Dr. Watkins invoked both the thrust of the gospel and the crisis of the decisions facing the new President and his Administration. And she did it without bowing to the gooey piety and sexism that may have marked another religious presentation at the swearing in ceremony itself. She called on the President to hold his ground on America's--and our faith’s --deepest values, and not to be drawn away from his ethical center. "Stay centered on the values that have empowered us to move through the perils of earlier times."

How did she suggest he do this? Her central illustration was the old Cherokee story of the two inner wolves. One was anger, vengefulness, resentment, self-pity and fear. The other was compassion, hope, truth and love.

"Which one wins, grandfather?" asks he grandson.

"The one you feed," he replied.

Dr. Watkins went on to take a quick look at the attitudes and policies which grow out of feeding the noble wolf. They are simply put: compassion, reaching out toward others--even our enemies--seeking peaceful alternatives, putting down the sword, imaging a world where liberty and justice prevail, welcoming the tired and poor of the world---an image enshrined by Emma Lazareth and displayed on the Statue of Liberty.

In concrete specific terms this clearly means a commitment in law, as well as in theory, to both domestic and international policies centering on mercy, good-will, justice and peace.

It strikes me that these are the very policies and actions that have been spelled out in the clear convictions articulated by our denomination year after year as we have honed them to sharply put points in our General Assemblies. In these gatherings, through their statements, we have fed the noble wolf biennial after biennial.

We now seem faced with the temptation, not to feed the vicious wolf, but to increasingly starve the noble one. We seem afraid that too much ecclesial protein may cause indigestion among those of our diminished number who take a much more cautious approach to the very issues Dr. Watkins, by implication, asked the President not to abandon. Let’s hope we are not reduced to mush in a world in which the Lord of the church asks for the kind of ecclesial response our General Minister and President asked of President Obama.

But that’s just my opinion. What’s yours?

Medicaid Waiver Decision Disheartening

2009-01-27T20:12:00.005-05:00

by The Rev. Dr. Carlton W. Veazey
President and CEO
Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice

The decision to eliminate the Medicaid family planning expansion provision from the Economic Stimulus package is disheartening and short-sighted. Reproductive health care may be extraneous to economic recovery for politicians secure in their government jobs but it is not for poor and low-income women.

A woman living in poverty is four times as likely to have an unintended pregnancy and five times as likely to have an unintended birth as her higher-income counterpart.

Access to reproductive health information and services allows women to continue their education, thereby improving their economic status and the well-being of their families and their communities. By denying these realities and failing to address issues so central to the health and well-being of women, their families and their communities, we are perpetuating an intolerable cycle of poverty.

The Medicaid family planning expansion provision would eliminate the need for states to obtain a formal Department of Health and Human Services "waiver" in order to expand Medicaid eligibility for family planning services to a greater population of low-income, uninsured women.

The Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice is an interfaith alliance comprising millions of Americans who want to eliminate the terrible disparities in access to health care. Reversing these disparities through provisions such as family planning is not only an issue of social justice but also sound fiscal policy.

We urge policymakers to include provisions such as the Medicaid Family Planning State Option in the Economic Stimulus package to enable those most severely impacted by our economic crisis to participate in our nation's recovery.

Along with many mainline Protestant denominations, ecumenical and interfaith groups, and organizations from other faith communities, Disciples For Choice is a member of the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice (RCRC). Although they do not agree with each other on everything, all members of RCRC do agree that all women should have full access to reproductive health care and complete information about reproductive health care options.

For Gaza - Lord Have Mercy!

2009-01-06T09:12:00.005-05:00

By Marla Schrader
Senior Fellow for Middle East Issues
Disciples Center for Public Witness

This week and last week in Gaza, the quiet deaths from a brutal, illegal blockade joined hundreds more deaths this time, so gruesome and all at once. Both types of killings are violent and arguably constitute war crimes. Indeed, the violence of occupation has not ended, neither in Gaza nor the West Bank. The occupation goes on and so does, sadly, the nakbah. Have Mercy!

This time I am not forwarding any church statements or prayers. They ring hollow to me because don't lay it out clearly with context and truth. The only ones I would point you towards is the statement from Sabeel, www.sabeel.org, because of their reference to human rights and international law.

Below are three items: a point by point analysis, an excellent compilation of articles from ICAHD and from George Rishmawi's Siraj Center, 25 Things to Do. Everyone in the region is asking us to ACT, to DO something, to TELL the truth with courage. So, George's list is of particular importance.

As the Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions, stated: "Let's be crystal clear. Israel 's massive attacks on Gaza today have one overarching goal: conflict management. How to end rocket attacks on Israel from a besieged and starving Gaza without ending the impetus for those attacks, 41 years of increasingly oppressive Israeli Occupation without a hint that a sovereign and viable Palestinian state will ever emerge."

And Archbishop DesmondTutu: "It is a blight not only on the Middle East, but on the entire world - and particularly world leaders who have consistently failed the people of Palestine and Israel over the past 60 years."

Faithfully,

Marla

1. Lights Out in Gaza, News Blackout in US by Deena Guzder http://www.commondreams.org/

2. Build Peace Newsletter: Analysis, background & context compiled by the Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions: http://icahdusa.org/

3. Twenty-five things to do to bring peace with justice by George Rishmawi: http://www.pcr.ps

The Social Gospel: An Ecumenical Tradition

2008-12-25T20:40:00.000-05:00

By Gary Dorrein
Reinhold Niebuhr Professor of Social Ethics
Union Theological Seminary

The idea that Christianity has a regenerative social mission is as old as the biblical message of letting justice flow like a river, pouring yourself out for the poor and vulnerable, and attending to what Jesus called "the weightier matters of the law," justice and mercy. In this country, the great evangelical and liberal movements of the 18thand 19th centuries were rife with temperance, anti-slavery, anti-war, and other social causes. Throughout American history, many American churches have taken for granted that the church must be a steward of a good society.

But the Progressive era introduced something new to American Christianity. In the early 1880s, proponents of what came to be called "the social gospel" founded what came to be called "social ethics" and the first institutions of ecumenical social Christianity . . . Only with the social gospel movement did the church begin to say that it had a mission to transform the structures of society in the direction of social justice.

. . . The social gospel movement had many faults and limitations. Most of it was sentimental, moralistic, idealistic, and politically naive. It preached a gospel of cultural optimism and a Jesus of middle-class idealism. It spoke the language of triumphal missionary religion, sometimes baptized the Anglo-Saxon ideology of Manifest Destiny, and usually claimed that U.S. American imperialism was not imperialism because of its good intentions. The social gospel helped to build colleges and universities for African Americans, but only rarely did it demand justice for blacks; it supported suffrage for women, but that was the extent of its feminism. Most social gospel leaders vigorously opposed World War I until the U.S. intervened, whereupon they promptly ditched their opposition to war; after the war they overreacted by reducing the social gospel to pacifist idealism.

Yet for all its faults and limitations, the social gospel movement . . . was a 60-year movement and enduring perspective that paved the way for modern ecumenism, social Christianity, the Civil Rights movement, and the deep involvement of the ecumenical movement in the Civil Rights movement.

It had a tradition in the black churches led by Reverdy Ransom, Ida B. Wells-Barnett, Benjamin E. Mays, Mordecai Johnson, and Martin Luther King Jr. It had anti-imperialist, socialist, feminist and theologically conservative advocates in addition to its liberal reformers. It created the ecumenical and social justice ministries that remain the heart of American Christianity. And it expounded a vision of economic democracy that is as relevant and necessary today as it was a century ago.

In 1908 approximately thirty-one Protestant and Eastern Orthodox denominations banded together to form the Federal Council of Churches. . . . The churches could not agree on doctrine; thus, there were many denominations. But the social gospel leaders of the Federal Council . . . contended that American Christians should be able to agree about social justice and do something for it. So the first thing they did was issue the Social Creed of the Churches of 1908, which advocated "equal rights and complete justice" for all human beings; the abolition of child labor; a "living wage as a minimum in every industry"; social security; an equitable distribution of income and wealth; the abatement of poverty; and eight other planks focused mostly on economic justice.

The Federal Council became a vehicle for the transmission of social gospel ideas into the churches and society; the Social Creed reverberated with the values of social and economic democracy; and the idea of economic democracy was intrinsic to the social gospel. To the social gospelers, democracy was indispensable in the political, social, and economic spheres, and for the same reasons: to provide equal opportunity, to safeguard the rights of citizens, and to prevent any group from attaining too much power. . . .

I treasure the social ethical witness and tradition of the ecumenical movement. It is the heart of my teaching, scholarship, and social activism. When I think of the National Council of Churches, the first thing I think of is its deep involvement in the Civil Rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s. That witness drew me into the church and the ordained ministry, in the 1970s. But how many young people today are attracted to the church by our clear, prophetic, visible, energetic social justice ministry

. . . Today our churches need to be spiritual strongholds of social justice conviction and zones of multi-racial diversity. . . . We need new forms of community that arise out of but transcend religious affiliation, culture and nation. All our religious traditions have propensities for dogmatism and prejudice that must be uprooted.

If those of us who are Caucasian fail to interrogate white supremacism and its privileges, we will resist any recognition of our own racism. If those of us who are male fail to interrogate our complicity in sexism, we will perpetuate it. If those of us who are Christian fail to repudiate anti-Semitism and Christian supercessionism, we will perpetuate the evils that come with them. If those of us who are heterosexual fail to stand up for the rights of gays and lesbians, we will have an oppressive church. If we sign up for militarism and empire, we will betray the way of Christ. We need a wider community of the divine good. The future belongs to God, and after all our work is done, it is God who will make something new in the world out of our struggles for justice and peace and the flourishing of life.

Gary Dorrien is the Reinhold Niebuhr Professor of Social Ethics at Union Theological Seminary and Professor of Religion at Columbia University in New York. These remarks were made before the annual General Assembly of the National Council of Churches and Church World Service in Denver, Nov, 11, 2008. Emphasis added by blogger. To read the entire address by Dr. Dorrien, PLEASE CLICK HERE.

A TIME FOR GIVING THANKS

2008-11-27T12:51:00.005-05:00

By Jim Wallis
President of Sojourners/Call to Renewal

It is a time to be thankful, even in the midst of the economic crisis all around the world. The election showed that our country is better than some of us thought it was. The electorate voted to turn the page on many things, and to choose hope over fear.

I am in England for a family visit — my wife, Joy, being British. And I have been amazed at how hopeful people are here about a U.S. election. Even among ordinary people, something has connected. I have been meeting with both church and political leaders this week who also feel a moment of opportunity. On Nov. 4, there was dancing in the streets, not only in my inner-city D.C. neighborhood, but in London as well. There is now a chance for the U.S. to change its image in the world.

It's been a long, hard year for many of us. And the sense of relief and even joy is still slowly settling in. We have no utopian illusions, no faith in political messiahs, but we still see a transformational moment in this election — especially for a new generation. So despite the falling financial markets and the problems focused on during this endless political campaign still unsolved, let us take this Thanksgiving holiday to truly give thanks for the hope that so many now feel in our country and around the world. Let us thank God for new beginnings. And let us pray for better days ahead.

And then on Monday, let us go back to work, because there is much work to be done. We haven't yet seen the change that we need, but we now have the opportunity to make that change — which depends not just on a new president, but on each and every one of us. People of faith are often the ones turned to for translating hopes into realities. Let us rest well this holiday, for the work of real change is just ahead.

Rev. Jim Wallis is the President of Sojourners/Call to Renewal and the author of many books, including God's Politics: Why the Right Gets It Wrong and the Left Doesn’'t Get It, and The Great Awakening: Reviving Faith and Politics in a Post-Religious Right America. DAWN (the Disciples Advocacy and Witness Network of the Christian Church Capital Area) is a local partner in ministry with Sojourners, and DJAN (the Disciples Justice Action Network) is a national partner. The General Minister and President of the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) is a member of the Sojourners Board of Directors, and works on specific projects with Sojourners through the Disciples Center for Public Witness.

Forgiving and Remembering!

2008-11-26T11:02:00.004-05:00

This week after the 7th International Sabeel Conference has ended, reflections and statements have been released. The conference statement which shares the conference title, "The Nakba: Memory, Reality and Beyond", begins by recognizing the irony that this year is the 60th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the 60th year since the massive displacement of Palestinian people. To read this statement, PLEASE CLICK HERE.

Please share this statement from our ecumencial church partner. You may want to highlight the Call at the end which offers some clear guidance as we start a new chapter of doing advocacy with an incoming US adminstration. For further background and/or study, and a pdf version of Sabeel's latest magazine, "The Ongoing Nakba," PLEASE CLICK HERE.

Friend, Sabeel Board member and past director of Rawdat El Zuhur school (one of our Global Ministries child sponsorship program sites), Samia Khoury shares her reflections on forgiveness and the testimony of an Israeli who participated in The Nakba. Very Powerful:

"Lord, how many times shall I forgive my brother when he sins against me? Up to seven times?" Jesus answered, "I tell you, not seven times, but seventy-seven times."

A short and small man physically, Josef Ben Eliezar stood tall as he asked for forgiveness from the Palestinians at the Sabeel 7th international conference on the Nakba: Memory Reality and Beyond which took place in Nazareth and Jerusalem (November 12-19, 2008). He shared with the participants his testimony for taking part in the expulsion of the Palestinian population from Lydda and robbing them of their money and personal possessions when he was an Israeli soldier in 1948.

Josef could not live with the reality of that day in July 1948. He realized then that what he was doing to the Palestinians was what the Nazis had done to his family and people before he had immigrated to Palestine after the holocaust. He did not find a listening ear in the newly established state of Israel, and the inhumanity of that war which as a Jew he thought was a war of liberation continued to pursue him until he eventually left the country and settled in England.

I wonder how many Israelis would have the courage and the magnanimity of Josef to admit that they have done the Palestinians wrong, let alone ask for forgiveness. Although his testimony was mostly in front of an international audience, yet there were a number of Palestinians from Jerusalem and Nazareth who heard him loud and clear. I was so moved that I felt I needed to get up and recognize his courage and thank him for his testimony assuring him that we do forgive him. (Check out his book The Search).

As people came up to thank me later on for my words, I could not help but wonder how meaningful for the Palestinian people it would have been and how much suffering could have been spared had the Israelis since day one of the establishment of the state in 1948 admitted the wrong and grave injustice that they had inflicted upon the Palestinians, asked for forgiveness, and allowed all who were evicted to return to their homes. A dream that could still be realized if the Jewish people can ponder and act in accordance with the words of their great prophet Micah (6:8) " What does the Lord require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God."

And finally, a reminder that this Saturday the 29th is the 61st anniversary of the decision to partition Palestine. For those of you who have not discovered them yet, please do take a few minutes to learn about Zochrot (Hebrew for Remembering). This is a group of Israeli citizens,

"working to raise awareness of the Nakba, the Palestinian catastrophe of 1948."

"The Zionist collective memory exists in both our cultural and physical landscape, yet the heavy price paid by the Palestinians -- in lives, in the destruction of hundreds of villages, and in the continuing plight of the Palestinian refugees -- receives little public recognition.

"Zochrot works to make the history of the Nakba accessible to the Israeli public so as to engage Jews and Palestinians in an open recounting of our painful common history. We hope that by bringing the Nakba into Hebrew, the language spoken by the Jewish majority in Israel, we can make a qualitative change in the political discourse of this region. Acknowledging the past is the first step in taking responsibility for its consequences. This must include equal rights for all the peoples of this land, including the right of Palestinians to return to their homes."

To learn more, PLEASE CLICK HERE. Also, here is information from their recent action alert/update:

Until July, 1948, the village of Ayn Karim, south of Jerusalem , was home to some 3700 Palestinians. They were expelled northward 60 years ago by an Israeli army force, and overnight became homeless refugees. After Israel captured the village it became part of Jerusalem , and is today considered to be a special neighborhood, one of the city’s most attractive areas. Many of the Palestinian homes still stand today, and Israelis live in them.

On Saturday, 29 November 2008, the 61st anniversary of the United Nations decision to partition Palestine , Zochrot will conduct a study tour in Ayn Karim. Well hear refugees from the village tell about their lives prior to the nakba, about the capture of the village and the expulsion of its inhabitants. Well erect signs to commemorate sites that existed in the village and distribute a booklet that we published in preparation for the tour.

This Thanksgiving, I lift up thanks for the courage of forgiveness and remembering!

Faithfully,

Marla