CENTERpiece2

TWO ANNIVERSARIES

2008-09-17T11:21:00.003-04:00

TWO SAD ANNIVERSARIES
By Marla Schrader,
Senior Advisor on Middle East Affairs
Disciples Center for Public Witness

This week I lift up two anniversaries: the 26th year since the brutal massacres in the Palestinian refugee camps of Sabra and Shatila and the 5th year since the death of the most virtuous and articulate leader of the Palestinian people, Prof. Edward Said. The ordinary, nameless & a famous intellectual. I also remember two friends who both died tragicly and much too young near the same time as Edward --Nizar and Hani. An agriculturalist and an evirnomentalist respectively, they were both Palestinian villagers who became dedicated UN employees working tirelessly with a deeply rooted understanding of the interconnectedness of our lands, waters, plants, creatures and peoples. We miss them all.

Most of you already know that the Free Gaza movement succeeded on August 23rd to break the siege and land two boats in Gaza! It was the first time in over forty years that international ships had docked in the Gaza Port. Tens of thousands of Palestinians gathered to welcome the humanitarian supplies and the delegation of brave internationals and Israelis.

Huwaida Arraf, delegation spokesperson and a law lecturer at Al-Quds University in Jerusalem, said, "The world cannot stay silent as the Palestinian people are deliberately starved and humiliated; Palestinians have a right to life with dignity. Last month, on August 23rd, our two, small, wooden boats, the Free Gaza and Liberty, sailed to Gaza and did what our governments would not do - we defied Israels illegal collective punishment of 1.5 million men, women and children living in the Gaza Strip. On September 25th, were sailing back to to challenge it again. Our boats are very humble, but what they represent is hope, and hope is what mobilizes change the world around."

Unfortunately, the Free Gaza movement had to postpone the Sept 25th date due to problems securing a sturdy vessel but they have not abandoned their plans to sail again. See their website for more details http://www.freegaza.org. Jeff Halper was one of the Israeli participants who landed in Gaza and I include his incredible report below.

Another bit of hope comes in the form of the Israeli human rights organization, B'tselem opening a U.S. office. They are now here in DC to provide our lawmakers the most accurate reports and to keep human rights front and center. Of course, this goes hand in hand with our faith committment to honoring all of creation and pursuing justice for all. I have included an article by Gideon Levy of the Israeli newspaper Ha'aretz. B'tselem also wrote up this horrible incident and it can be found on their website. Another infant dies at a checkpoint. I cannot imagine the grief. Yet, I do recall how terrified I was attempting to cross the checkpoint into Jerusalem when I was in labor with my daughter seven years ago. Why did that Russian-Israeli teenaged soldier let me and my Palestinian husband through? Why not the woman and her husband in Nablus? The cruel structures of violence are so illogical and haphazard.

Finally, I wanted to share with you the ad that the Council for National Interest has circulated. In between following the financial fallout this past week, I was pleased to read in The Washington Report that CNI is circulating this reality check!

"1.3 million American families lost their homes to foreclosure in 2007. Meanwhile, billions of your tax dollars continue to purchase beautiful new homes with subsidized mortgages in Israeli colonies in the West Bank. JOIN US as we pursue a new path in American policy towards Israel and her neighbors." http://cnifoundation.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=89&Itemid=41

Faithfully,
Marla

==========================

1. ADC Remembers Sabra and Shatila: www.adc.org

2. Remembering Edward Said Five Years On by Stephen Lendman: http://www.countercurrents.org/lendman220908.htm

3. End of an Odyssey by Jeff Halper: http://www.icahd.org/eng/articles.asp?menu=6&submenu=2&article=505

4. Twilight Zone / Dead on arrival by Gideon Levy http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1022799.html

Election Day is Almost Here--in Canada!

2008-09-17T02:47:00.006-04:00

Election Day is Almost Here--in Canada!
by Rick Myer
Senior Fellow for Faith and Public Life in Canada
Disciple Center for Public Witness

Just one day after Canadian Thanksgiving, your northern next-door neighbour is going to vote! And so, with a combination of meanings, we earnestly pray, "For what we are about to receive, may we be truly thankful."

This election was called by the present Conservative Government led by PM Stephen Harper. Harper's government proposed and passed federal legislation guaranteeing fixed elections, (just like the Americans), every four years. This election is only two and a half years after that bill passed and a year before the next scheduled election in '09. The reason stated was, that the government was stymied by the opposition.

There are three major parties here in Canada: the Conservatives, the Liberals, and the New Democratic Party (about which I'll say more in just a minute). Right now, polls make it clear the next government will be likely another minority one. This time, however, it may be either Liberal or Conservative. Canada has in the past formed coalition governments where two parties essentially agree to create an alliance and form a majority. An NDP/Liberal coalition maybe forth-coming.

Many Canadians prefer coalition governments and perceive them as more productive. As they see it, compromise and consensus is necessary and discord counterproductive.

As I promised above, here is information about the political parties in Canada: We have three major parties in the standing Federal Parliament and one vying for Status. Here they are:

Conservatives (think about the warmer, more moderate, and less caustic Republicans in the U.S.), are led by PM Stephen Harper. They're running on good government, fiscal responsibility, and family values, and of course, keeping Canada strong and safe. Problem is, they have been wracked by major scandals involving Cabinet members, squandering a 12 billion dollar surplus they inherited and a leader who is seen by many as cold, calculating and ruthless.

Right now, rather than talking issues and debating ideas, the Conservatives are running attack ads against Liberal leader Stephane Dion. These are very personal and tough, described as "American style campaigning" by those who find them offensive or inappropriate.

Canadian Liberals are, in general, more liberal than many U.S. Democrats. They are led by Stephane Dion. The Liberals have been in power more than any other party and almost see themselves as being Canada's natural ruling party. The last leadership convention saw Dion assume the mantle of leadership. The convention was fractious and the job opening pursued by three strong candidates. (One was a former Harvard Professor). Dion's language skills in English are not good and, consequentially, he is viewed by many as bumbling and inept. (Canada is an officially bi-lingual country with French and English being the two main languages.)

Under Dion's leadership, the Liberals have proposed a Carbon Tax. That tax would be an additional tax on petro-chemical consumers and would be channeled into alternative sources of energy production and more research in this area. It is not a very popular idea and so the Liberals are reworking the language and specifics in order to make it more palatable to the general public. Also, Liberals get some support when they criticize the Conservatives for irresponsible tax-cuts and wasting the surplus they inherited when elected.

New Democrats are led by Jack Leyton. The NDP has never headed a national government, but has developed and promoted social policies that other governments adopted and then claimed as their own. Those policies include universal government funded health care, universal income supplement for all Canadians over 65 years. That comes whether or not you are qualified for a Canada Pension. (Note: My Mother moved to Canada ten years ago from the U.S. While she recieves social security benefits, she still qualifies for the income top-up here in Canada . As well, she pays nothing for her medicines other than a small dispensing fee and she has opted out of Medicare premiums thanks to socialized medicines. Again, these programmes, adopted by the other parties, were inspired by the social democrats in the NDP.

Jack Leyton is the NDP Leader and presented himself recently in Calgary, (Harper's riding), as an applicant for the job of Canada's next Prime Minister. Not likely to happen. However, he may yet be a king maker.

Bloc Quebecoisis led by Giles Ducepp. On social policy, he is very much left of centre and similar to the NDP. The main difference is they are a Provincial Party from Quebec--one that functions in the Federal Parliament under a mandated to fight for a separate and independent Quebec. Try to wrap your heads around that one: Ducepp benefits from his regional policy and only has to campaign at home in Quebec. (No easy task as Quebec is bigger than Alaska--but don't tell Sarah Palin).

The Green Partyis led by Elizabeth May. The Greens are very similar to Liberals, Bloc Quebecois and the NDP on social issues and is not distinctive enough from the NDP, Liberals and Bloc to have a strong identity of their own in the upcoming elections. They are not expected to gain even one seat in Parliament in next month's election.

It should be noted to citizens of our southern neighbor that Canadian politics are more focussed on ideas, party and issues than on personalities. There is no "Independant Party" or people who register as "Independants". As a dual citizen, I have the option of voting in two elections this fall. I moved from the States in '84 and have not voted since 1980. This year, I will be casting my ballot online. (Just a sidebar: Canada has many ex-pat Americans who have lived here for many years. We have been recruited by both the Republicans and Democrats to vote in this upcoming US election. So far, at least according to the polls, it looks as though Obama will sweep the Americans here in Canada).

So, while giving thanks for all our many blessings, we can include in our prayers our gratitude for the blessings of freedom, the blessing that we are free to elect and influence our government through our votes, and the blessing of a nation that, overall, really cares about the well-being of its people. At the same time, we'll pray that we will be blessed by the two-party ruling government that will most likely emerge out of this election.

Happy elections, eh!
Grace and Peace,
Rick Myer

Rick is a former moderator of the Christian Church in Canada and served for many years on the Justice and Peace Commission of the Canadian Council of Churches. He currently serves as a DJAN contact in Canada and as the Senior Fellow for Faith and Public Life in Canada at the Disciples Center for Public Witness.

ALL THINGS TO ALL PEOPLE

2008-07-21T15:21:00.004-04:00

"ALL THINGS TO ALL PEOPLE"
by Ken Brooker Langston

An old saying goes, "You can’t be all things to all people." Yet, with all that we stand for and all the things in which we are involved, it often seems that DJAN is trying to do just that.

As a multi-issue organization, we are the network of people within the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) that supports reparations, opposes torture, supports a living wage for all workers, opposes the war in Iraq, supports immigrants rights, opposes religious discrimination in hiring, supports comprehensive health care for all (especially children), opposes capital punishment, supports Middle East peace, opposes the Israeli occupation of Palestine, supports higher wages and better conditions for farm workers, opposes tax cuts for the wealthy that require budget cuts for the needy, supports efforts to end genocide in Darfur, opposes the ongoing racism and sexism in our churches, supports full inclusion and equal rights for ALL God’s children—and that’s just to name a few of our many issues!

We are the people who work inside the church and also the people who work outside the church. Through congregational workshops, Justice Jubilees, blogs, email alerts, resource groups and resolutions at General and Regional Assemblies, booths at major events and conferences, and the denomination-wide distribution of our newsletters and educational materials, members of DJAN work hard to promote a passion for justice within our denomination. Yet DJAN activists also work outside the walls of our denomination, providing support and leadership to diverse kinds of ecumenical and interfaith coalitions working on a host of important issues and concerns. Thus, we are both a movement for justice within the denomination and a progressive Disciples presence within the larger movement for justice, peace, diversity, and inclusion.

"All things to all people." We are the people who criticize our church from the prophetic perspective of the gospel when we think it is more concerned about institutional preservation than about mission, cares more about growth than integrity, and confuses the avoidance of controversy with the unity for which our Lord and Savior prayed before he died. But we are also the people who love our church, want to see it thrive, and praise and support our members and leaders when they faithfully promote the Biblical vision of justice and shalom: when they speak out with prophetic boldness on behalf of, and take action out of pastoral care for, ‘the least of these’—the very people who were identified by Jesus himself as the priority of the Church when it carries out its mission to “preach good news to the poor.”

And on a current issue in the life of the church, we are the people of justice advocacy who oppose the elimination of sense-of-the-assembly resolutions as yet another nail in the coffin of substantial--or even symbolic--institutional commitment by the denomination to its often professed “passion for justice.” At the same time, we are the people of peace, the people of diversity, and the people of inclusion who welcome and support a church-wide conversation--a serious and prayerful process of discernment--about the prophetic witness of the church and the value and purpose of resolutions as part of that witness--both denominationally and ecumenically--as well as how the structure of the denomination allows each manifestation of the church to speak for itself on public issues and concerns while remaining in faithful covenant with the other manifestations.

"All things to all people." Perhaps this is just not a good thing to try to be. After all, it certainly has its snares and pitfalls, its severe limitations and frustrations. But, even with all that, none other than the Apostle Paul affirmed it as a worthy goal. In his letter to the church at Corinth he said, “I have become all things to all people.” Why? “That I might by all means save some.” Furthermore, “I do it all for the sake of the gospel, that I may share with you in its blessings.”

As Christians committed to the Biblical vision of justice and shalom, we certainly want to save people. We want to save our children. We want to save our families. We want to save our neighborhoods. We want to save our churches. We want to save our denomination. We want to save our ecumenical and interfaith relationships. We want to save our nation. We want to save all nations and all peoples. We want to save our planet. And, as we attempt to do all of this, we want to save our integrity—and our sanity!

Obviously, no one among us can save everyone and everything. And it seems far too difficult at all times to be "all things to all people." But, as the Scriptures assure us, "I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me." And, so, if we really believe this—if we do what we do "through Christ" and "for the sake of the gospel" (God’s good news to the poor), then we all will, in our different ministries of personal and social transformation, "by all means save some." And by accepting the invitation to do our share, we share in the blessings promised to us “through Christ" by a just and loving God. For as the Scriptures say, "Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for justice, for they shall have their fill."

Here at DJAN, as we try to be "all things to all people," our plate is certainly full—full of challenges and full of blessings! Won’t you join us? We long to share with you in both, believing with Paul and Christians everywhere that God is able!

To support the justice ministry of DJAN, PLEASE CLICK HERE.

To JOIN or RENEW your membership in DJAN, PLEASE CLICK HERE.

To HONOR OUR FOUNDERS by giving to the Lords Fund, PLEASE CLICK HERE.

To read the current online edition of the DJAN newsletter, CALL TO JUSTICE, PLEASE CLICK HERE.

IMMIGRATION and CULTURAL IDOLATRY

2008-07-16T12:15:00.004-04:00

FEAR, CULTURAL IDOLATRY, and the LIBERATING POWER of FAITH:
ON IMMIGRATION in the UNITED STATES
by The Rev. Jose F. Morales, Jr.

As I understand the Christian faith, it is clear to me that temples, churches, mosques, and other places of faith should extend sanctuary for immigrants. Period! Yet, I go further, for immigrants seeking sanctuary is only a symptom of the disease which plagues this country. To place a topical ointment on something festering deep within will not do much. Going further requires that the liberating power of faith be reclaimed as we seek to comfort immigrants and aggravate immigration policymakers.

So . . . what is beneath the surface? What is at the core of the issue? What is the driving force of the immigration debate?

I say: it is fear.

And the fear is not that "Mexicans are taking our jobs." Quite frankly, it is corporate America, and its loyalty to the bottom line, that is taking our jobs, taking our jobs overseas. Vijay Prashad, a cultural studies scholar from Trinity College in Hartford, frequently reminds us that "the American working class lives in China." If losing jobs is what we fear, we should confront the governmental and financial "powers that be" that deport jobs overseas, instead of trying to deport millions of Mexicans.

What’s at the core of the debate, in my opinion, is a cultural fear that grows out of cultural hegemony and cultural idolatry. Namely, the fear comes from the "threat" of having large numbers of immigrants who refuse to assimilate easily, in a country where the cultural majority sees assimilation as a moral virtue and as a necessity for socio-political well-being.

In other words, immigration is not a threat to national security; it is a threat to national identity. For since the first rounds of Native extermination, the cultural "norm" has been set by the cultural majority, namely, immigrants of Anglo stock, which is why I am convinced that "white" is a political designation, not a cultural one; and which is why I am even suspicious of the intention of some white liberals who, by using "diversity" and "multicultural" language, are really attempting to maintain cultural control in the guise of diversity "management" so as to avoid the real issue, namely, "de-white-supremafication" (a term coined by Prashad).

As these gatekeepers of Anglo-American culture see it, their power to set and sustain the norm is being challenged by backwater, Spanish-speaking, indigenous, Catholic, pre-modern, brown people who are a drag on the economy. Yet what these immigrants are a drag on is the cultural hegemony of white society. Just as post-bellum white southerners feared a black cultural revolution and thus acted in horrific, dehumanizing ways to squelch any inkling of Afro-cultural insurgency, the cultural majority today fears specifically a Latino-cultural revolution which will rob them of their power to set the "norm."

The sad tale to this saga for me, as a faithful Christian, is that this cultural hegemony has been, and still is, sanctioned and sustained by religion. God-talk is employed to ignore cultural fear and to maintain cultural hegemony, which consequently leads to cultural idolatry by the cultural majority. Below are three ways in which religion is distortedly used for these ends.

1. The dominant cultural makes an appeal to "obedience of the law" as a moral absolute without first determining whether the contents and intents of said law, in and of themselves, are morally right and just.

2. The nation that concocts these laws is given divine origins and divine purpose. In short, to go against the state is to go against God.

3. The "white" majority, who have written the history of the nation (so as to soften up things like Native extermination, slavery of African peoples, and subjugation of women), are given divine preference and set the "standard" by which all residents of the republic are judged.

The cultural fear of the cultural majority is addressed thusly by appeals to religion--in this country, by appeals to their Christianity. And I will specify: their Christianity. For, interestingly enough, numbers show that the majority of African, Arab, Persian, and Latin American immigrants are Christian; and yet, these forms of imported, un-Americanized Christianity are not good enough for this republic and its religion.

As a Christian, I challenge their cultural-civil form of Christianity because, as I see it, it is not Christianity. The Christian faith is one of liberating power from below, not oppressive power from above. This principal of liberating power is embodied in the Torah, where provisions were made to guard against economic exploitation, political oppression, and religious legitimation. The prophets remind the people of the socio-political mandate of the Law, for they had emptied the Law of its liberating power and had begun to use it for personal gain and exploitive purposes in the name of God--sounds awfully familiar! For Christians, the Christ event is the fullest embodiment of this liberating power. It is in the political execution of Jesus on the Cross where he is ironically yet profoundly crowned king, and where God’s liberating power was demonstrated and the culture’s oppressive power exposed.

Lest I am accused of theological rambling, I wish to point out how this re-appropriation of the faith is applicable to the immigration issue. First of all, the immigration laws of this country are unjust, and should be declared as such by people of faith. Before we are called upon to adhere to these decrees, we should consider and challenge the racist, classist, ideological, and religiously exclusivist demons that inform and shape immigration policy as it now stands. To adhere to an immoral law is, well, immoral. For this reason, I have no problem encouraging churches, synagogues, and mosques to "break the law" and serve as sanctuaries for immigrants.

Secondly, a critique of cultural idolatry is in order. While God in the Tanakh is referred to as "the God of Israel," God is not an Israelite--nor an American, for that matter. Cultural idolatry diminishes the beauty of the whole people of God and does not allow us to see diversity as a gift of God’s Spirit (cf. New Testament, Acts 2). Providing sanctuary is a bold affirmation of diversity and of diversity’s rightful place in the American cultural milieu.

Thirdly, I believe that faith and "values" language--i.e. "God-talk"--has its place in politics, since it is the language of many people who are affected by the political process. Yet, God-talk should be employed only for the common good and not for private or denominational interests. Civil religion used to subjugate workers for personal gains is rebuked by the prophet Isaiah (cf. Tanakh, Isaiah 58).

Lastly, people of faith should be at the forefront in naming the fear, and illegitimizing it. For it is, after all, illegitimate fear. In fact, it is fear of the worst kind: fear of the "other." And it is only by knowing the "other" and by loving them that fear is replaced by compassion and solidarity, which are core values of the sanctuary movement. As it is written, "There is no fear in love, but perfect love casts out fear." (New Testament, 1 John 4:18)

To be clear, love casts out fear, not immigrants.

The Rev. Jose F. Morales is the Associate Pastor at Iglesia del Pueblo Christian Church (Disciples of Christ), and Clergy Caucus Chair of the Interfaith Federation, a faith-based power organization committed to affecting public policy in Northwest Indiana.

This article was originally published in For You Were Once a Stranger: Immigration in the U.S. Through the Lens of Faith, a resource developed by Interfaith Worker Justice. The resource is available at: http://www.iwj.org/actnow/imm/immigration.html.

SULLIVAN: The Prophetic Church

2008-05-29T22:39:00.000-04:00

During these times of virtual scarcity of resources, it may seem wise for churches to avoid engaging in bold or socially risky conversations and prophetic ministry endeavors and instead limit their faith-based engagements to worship, praise, fellowship and the kinds of ministries that intentionally challenge no one to move from their corridors of comfort and patterns of polite predictability. Somehow, scores of us are nurturing ourselves in the belief that it is the avoidance of conflict and controversy that leads the church to being strong, united and financially stable. I beg to differ! I believe the adoption and continuance of such a stance is to place one leg of the church we love on the slippery ground of ecclesial and social obscurity and the other on a proverbial banana peel.

In a world where violence, hate, alienation and hunger masquerade as being socially acceptable, Christians who have gained a glimpse of God’s vision of love and justice for humanity must accept the divine call and the associated responsibility to be agents of social transformation, speaking lovingly and prophetically to the hurtful and toxic systems of our world, and to those who maintain them, while articulating without apology what we know to be God’s loving and just vision for humanity. We do this prayerfully and with humility that is seasoned with boldness, trusting God’s vision to unite us and believing that God’s decisive, clear and present power, made known to us in the resurrection of Jesus the Christ, can and will sustain us.

So then, it is good that we worship, praise and seek to live as respectful people--I say amen to that! However, the church that jettisons faith-based prophetic, social change ministries of justice and healing in the name of safety and stability, also jettisons its credibility. If we desire to be faithful to God and impact the world in the life-giving, loving and liberating tradition of Jesus the Christ, we must take the risk of engaging in prophetic ministry. Amen.

Grace and Peace,
Jack

The Reverend Dr. Jack Sullivan, Jr., D.Min, is the Senior Pastor at Fifth Christian Church (Cleveland, OH) and the co-chair of the Disciples Justice Action Network (DJAN).

HOBGOOD: War and Peace

2008-05-19T10:51:00.005-04:00

TWO HOLIDAYS and a RESOLUTION: Brief Reflections on War and Peace
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 weekend (May 16-18, 2008) was bracketed by two holidays, one in the U.S. and the other in Canada. Although not officially celebrated as a federal holiday, Friday 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 believe 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. 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.

Today (May 19th), our Canadian sisters and brothers are 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 currently causing 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 the war in Iraq: 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 who are stationed there 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 a 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 preached by Jesus Christ (the Prince of Peace) and entrusted to his disciples--we who are called and blessed to be peacemakers.

WATKINS: Remembering Dr. King

2008-04-04T10:20:00.000-04:00

A STATEMENT from Our GENERAL MINISTER and PRESIDENT

On this day of tragedy and remembrance, we join with people of all faiths and all colors to pay tribute to the life, work, vision and martyrdom of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Today, the anniversary of the death of one of our nation's greatest prophets and moral leaders, is a time of challenge for all of us who seek "wholeness in a fragmented world." It is a time for prayerful reflection on the state of our church, our nation and our world. And it is a time for recommitment to the Biblical vision of shalom that shaped Dr. King's ministry and grounded his vision for America and the world.

There are three areas in particular where the work and vision of Dr. King continue to challenge us. The first of these is the continuing struggle against racism. As Katrina and its aftermath exposed for all to see, the ugly realities of racism and poverty continue to plague our land and harm far too many of our people. This is the case not only for the nation as a whole; to our shame, it is also a continuing problem for the church. But this cannot continue if we are to be the church that God has called us to be. As part of our remembrance of this day, let us rededicate ourselves fully to eliminating all forms of racism in our life together as the one family of God and the united body of Christ.

The vision of Dr. King also continues to challenge us in the ongoing struggle to overcome poverty. King was a champion not only of civil rights for African Americans, but also for economic rights for all people. In fact, just before his assassination, he was publicly lending his support to striking sanitation workers in Memphis. It is appropriate to honor his life by demonstrating our support for working families and those struggling with economic deprivation. One way to do this is to join with other people of faith across America in the interfaith Minimum Wage Campaign (www.letjusticeroll.org). Consistent with our faith and General Assembly Sense-of-the-Assembly Resolution 0157, we are called to "support national movements toward the passage of legislation that guarantees workers sufficient wages to supply adequate food, clothing, shelter and health care for themselves and their families."

A third area in which we are still very much challenged by the vision of Dr. King is the struggle for peace. As a prophet and practitioner of nonviolence, Dr. King could not and did not remain silent about a war that, in his time, divided our people and undermined our moral integrity as a nation. In the spirit of Dr. King, we cannot remain silent about the war in Iraq. Whatever our position might be on specific strategies and timetables, the Biblical vision of shalom [affirmed in GA07 Sense-of-the-Assembly Resolution 0728] surely calls us to join other people of faith in seeking peace.

On Dr. King's birthday we celebrated our nation's achievements in civil rights, human rights and nonviolence. But on this day, the day of his martyrdom, let us commit ourselves to working harder, and doing all that we can do, to end racism, poverty and war. In this way, we not only keep Dr. King’s memory alive; we also continue to promote his prophetic dream for a better church, a better nation and a better world.

ADAMS: Faith and Politics

2008-03-21T13:39:00.005-04:00

Should the Church Be Political?
by Dr. Preston T. Adams III

Jeremiah 1:5-8 - Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations. 6 Then said I, Ah, Lord GOD! behold, I cannot speak: for I am a child. 7 But the LORD said unto me, Say not, I am a child: for thou shalt go to all that I shall send thee, and whatsoever I command thee thou shalt speak. 8 Be not afraid of their faces: for I am with thee to deliver thee, saith the LORD. (KJV)

2 Timothy 4:2-5 - Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine. 3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; 4 And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables. 5 But watch thou in all things, endure afflictions, do the work of an evangelist, make full proof of thy ministry. (KJV)

Recently in an internet discussion group the following questions were asked: "Is the pulpit a place for opinions? Is it a place to express your own anti-white/Republican/American/ government in general/etc etc feelings?" and "Should the church be political? " These questions were prompted by the media's recent barrage of coverage pertaining to the statements made by Dr. Jeremiah Wright and more specifically; because of Dr. Wright's association with Senator Barack Obama (Dr. Wright, now retired from the pulpit, is Obama's former Pastor). Below is my response.

I open by stating emphatically that the church must guard herself against taking political sides. The church is God's change agent for the world and must therefore be very wary about eating from the "King's [or Queen's] table" (i.e., taking the favors that are often dangled as carrots or rewards for political support). There is a very fine line between what the church's role should be as it relates to politics, and what the church's role becomes, or is perceived to become. Politicians know the power of the pulpit, and the pew, and for that reason these same politicians understand that the church cannot be ignored if they want the support of the church and its constituency.

Let us also be mindful of the place and role of the church in the lives and history of black folks. Historically, the church was all we had. It was our meeting place, gathering place, support system, and place of worship. Many of the most significant movements in African-American history originated in, or flowed through, the black church. The black pastor was looked to as the Griot, Counselor, Moses, or Deborah of black people. The black pastor represented leadership for the black community, particularly during the period in American history when blacks could not hold public office positions, or could only hold limited public office positions. Assimilation, higher education, and so-called upward mobility have changed this dynamic for some black folk. But the masses of our people are still disenfranchised and for many of those masses, the black church still represents the central place for all that I've mentioned above.

With that said, let me now offer the following brief commentary regarding what pastors and prophets should or should not say.

Biblically, God's mouthpieces (pastors and prophets) are commanded by God to speak truth to power. We are to speak out against injustices, racism, sexism, oppression, and outright ungodliness. The great reform preacher Karl Barth once said that "Sermons should be written with the Bible in one hand and a newspaper in the other." What he was saying is that our preaching must be relevant to, directly address, current issues. Our challenge is to do this first and foremost through prayer and intensive study of God's Word, as direct by the Holy Spirit.

Any pastor who stands behind the sacred desk (pulpit) must understand and fully recognize that everyone will not agree with what he/she is saying. Some will even interpret his/her words as a personal attack, and deem the language inappropriate or even offensive. But if that pastor believes God is leading him/her then their accountability is ultimately to God. It's an awesome weight to carry, one that you cannot really understand unless you have accepted the yoke. It is also why no preacher should ever enter the pulpit without an enormous amount of prayer, self-denial, and true submission to the Spirit of God. To do otherwise is deadly and totally against the will of God.

There is more that could be said on this subject but I will close by noting the following. All of the 8th century prophets, from Isaiah to Malachi, spoke truth to power. When they spoke against the ills of their society none of them were popular. Most were outcasts. But Israel was brought back to God by the voice of the prophets who spoke on God's behalf.

And, let's not forget about Jesus. Understand that when Jesus came, He too spoke truth the power. He too was not popular. He spoke about a new government, a new King, a new system, and a new way of doing things. If He were alive today and preaching the same message He preached over 2,000 years ago, it would not go against reason or logic to say that today's society would crucify Him as well. Many would cry, "Give us Barabbas!!"

And yet, knowing that we ultimately betrayed Him, Christ was still able to utter from the cross, "Father, forgive them for they know not what they do." His message was not a popular one. It cost Him his life. But because He gave up His earthly life, all humans (that's me and you) now have access to eternal life. Thank you Jesus!

Please pray for our pastors. Pray for our churches. Pray for Christians in general. That's really the most important thing any of us can do.

Dr. Preston T. Adams, III, is a Pastor, Life Coach, Author, and Entrepreneur. He is the Executive Pastor of Light of the World Christian Church in Indianapolis, IN, the CEO of Project Impact-Indianapolis, and the Overseer of the Christian Ecumenical Covenant Fellowship founded by Bishop T. Garrott Benjamin, Jr. Dr. Adams has his own blog, SEEDS of SUCCESS (SOS) which can be found at http://drprestontadams.typepad.com.

KINNAMON: Being Hopeful Realists

2008-03-12T23:37:00.000-04:00

ON BEING HOPEFUL REALISTS
Disciples of Christ – United Church of Christ Reception
Ecumenical Advocacy Days
March 8, 2008

I am not at Ecumenical Advocacy Days because I am the General Secretary of the National Council of Churches. I was coming here long before I thought about becoming General Secretary. No, I am at Advocacy Days because it is integral to my Christian identity.

That’s not to say that things haven’t changed for me since I left Eden for New York City at the first of the year. The good news about being a seminary professor (which I have been for the past quarter century) is that you can say whatever you want. The bad news about being a seminary professor is that nobody has to take what you say very seriously.

Now, of course, I have responsibilities for building up a community of communions that includes churches which don’t always agree with the UCC and the Disciples on social issues! And that is the great challenge of such a council: The NCC is both a forum where genuinely conflicting perspectives meet in dialogue and a renewal effort that boldly declares the gospel’s partisanship on behalf of the excluded and oppressed. And that is a real tension. If we move quickly on questions of poverty or peace, we risk leaving member churches behind. If we try to marshal the whole community, we risk missing the moment when our voice is needed. I am committed to this kind of ecumenical work not because it is efficient, but because I believe that the willingness of Christians to live trustfully with differences is itself our most significant witness against the forces of fragmentation and exclusion. Living with people we otherwise would avoid is the surest sign that the church is a community of God’s calling, not ours.

===============

I want to begin my remarks by pointing to a book (other than the Bible) that may not have received the attention it deserves: Beyond Idealism: A Way Ahead for Ecumenical Social Ethics. In it, the authors - who include such familiar ecumenical scholars as Julio de Santa Ana, Heidi Handsel, and Lew Mudge - argue for a perspective they call “hopeful realism” – realistic assessment of our social situation coupled with a willingness to imagine alternate realities. As they see it (and I think they are right), ecumenical social thought has often responded to war or discrimination or environmental destruction with idealized slogans and utopian pronouncements. An example that comes to mind is when delegates at the WCC’s Canberra Assembly in 1991 called for return of Australia to Aboriginal sovereignty – which may have made some people feel good but was surely of less use (realistically) to the Aboriginal community than, say, pressure to grant land rights in Queensland.

So, on the one hand, too idealistic. On the other hand, the NCC in particular has often been reactive to the world’s agenda, promoting reforms that, while important, leave the underlying status quo basically untouched. Please don’t misunderstand: I do not want us to stop pushing for raises in the minimum wage or calling for more recycling or promoting a reduction in defense spending; but these things are alterations of the system and stop short of a truly prophetic witness which engenders hope for a different way of living in human society. I certainly appreciated the presentation this morning, but Dr. Scherch’s underlying assumption was that our role is to speak truth to power. That is surely important, but not finally sufficient.

Audrey Chapman, former executive of United Church Board for World Ministries, writes that our churches seem limited to recommending “incremental policy changes that often differ little from those of secular political actors.” What is often missing, in her words, “is a compelling religious vision, a sense of the ‘new’ and the ‘not yet’ of God’s Kingdom that challenges and opposes the importance of the injustices of the dominant reality by invoking God’s peace and justice.” Remember Dr. King’s great refrain: “I have a dream” - of the day when black children and white children play together, when the empty stomachs of Mississippi are filled… This is not wishful thinking. It is imagining the world as our gracious God would have it. And, as such, it helps set our proper agenda.

“Hopeful realism.” We cannot eradicate evil. The conceit of such utopianism has itself been the fuel of countless tyrannies. But we also must not allow those responsible for present systems of injustice to define what is possible, because we are followers of One whose promise is not just for another world but for this world made other. This hopeful realism perspective can be clearly seen, by the way, in the NCC’s strategic plan for the new quadrennium which sets forth an overarching goal of “promoting a vision of authentic common life as an alternative to that prevalent in contemporary North American culture.” I have heard members of the NCC’s Governing Board dismiss this language as meaningless. I obviously disagree.

A perfect issue for thinking about “hopeful realism” is the theme for this year’s Ecumenical Advocacy Days: security. Security is a dominant topic in this year’s election campaign; and, if I’m not mistaken, we (Christians) have an understanding of security that is both realistic and fundamentally different from that offered by either political party. Let me flesh out this claim by making two points about security in Christian perspective.

The first insight (held not only by Christians but by all people of faith) is expressed in a famous passage from Dr. King’s “Christmas Sermon on Peace”: “…all life is interrelated. We are all caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny [as children of one Creator]. Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly.”

Such interdependence means that true security is never won through unilateral defense (as most political candidates would have it) but through attentiveness to the injustice that afflicts other children of God, because the well-being of one is inseparable from the well-being of others. The Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, puts it succinctly: “There is no security apart from common security.” Israeli security depends, finally, on Palestinians having a stake in the development of the Middle East. U.S. security depends, among other things, on addressing the economic disparities that help fuel terrorist attacks. As my daughter, Anna might say, this seems so obvious! But it needs to be repeated over and over in this election year: human life, seen through the eyes of faith, is interdependent, not independent.

This is certainly not to deny that, in a world such as ours, there are realistic reasons to be anxious. But we dare not allow the powers that be to define life as a zero-sum game in which my security is gained at your expense. If the Christian faith is true, then life is not a grim competition but a blessing to be shared by all.

All of this has, as you know, very practical implications. The President’s proposed defense budge for FY 2009 is $541 billion, not counting the additional costs for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. A fraction of that amount, by UN estimate, could substantially reduce hunger, the shortage of adequate housing, the spread of HIV/AIDS, the shortage of classrooms, and environmental destruction around the world. Christians must insist on asking: Which expenditure will realistically contribute most to our security? Pressing this question is not being soft on terrorism; it is being faithful to the message of the prophets (see Isaiah 32) that only justice will bring lasting security.

I want to note, parenthetically, that Christians are also called to care for the most vulnerable and insecure members of society, regardless of its effect on us. Matthew 25 may not say, “I was insecure and you offered me safety,” but that would be true to the spirit of the text. My first point, however, is to insist that a recognition of interdependence is the key to our own well-being as well as an imperative of the gospel.

My second point: Anxiety, which is what humans feel when we are insecure, follows from trusting in the wrong things to protect us. (This, of course, was the great theme of the neo-orthodox theologians--e.g., Reinhold Niebuhr--whose faith was lived out amid the insecurities of the Depression and World War II.) If, for example, our sense of worth and personal security are tied to the size of our bank account, then we will likely never have “enough.” The parable in Luke 12, in which the rich man builds bigger barns to protect his “stuff,” comes quickly to mind--although experience also teaches this lesson. People who try to guarantee their own security without thought of others, often find that the more they accumulate, the more insecure they become. According to Luke, Jesus tells his disciples that all life is a short-term loan from God. If we could trust in that, then our anxiety might lessen and our covetousness turn to generosity.

All of this, as you know, also applies to nations. The assumption undergirding much of our public discourse seems to be that is appropriate, or at least okay, for us (however “us” is defined) to have a hugely disproportionate share of the world’s goods, and that using force to get or keep them, if authorized by the state, is necessary and legitimate. As someone once said, you cannot serve two masters. If our choice is mammon, then we will need all the military power we can amass, all of the walls can build, to defend it.

Let me go further. The longing for self-created security, understandable as it is in human terms, is ultimately idolatrous because it trusts in something other than God. As the great Jewish rabbi, Abraham Joshua Heschel, frequently observed, even the desire for religious certainty is blasphemous because it confuses religion with God. We are not protected by religious absolutes but by the One who transcends our schemes and our doctrines and our perspectives.

Christians know that to be human is to be vulnerable; and if we don’t know it now, we surely will in the moment of our death. The question is how we live with that fact. The opposite of fear, I would suggest, is not invulnerability but hope in God’s future, both for ourselves and for life on this planet. In anxiety, we live in anticipation of possible danger. In hope, we live in anticipation of promised fulfillment. And that allows us to risk life in diverse community rather than in guarded enclaves. Loving the God who first loved us, frees us from the cramped life of self-confirmation, frees us from the need to disparage those who are different. In the words of I John, it is this love (this assurance that we are loved) which “casts out fear.”

In preparing the previous paragraphs, I was reminded of the wonderful short poem by W.H. Auden, “Leap Before You Look.”

The sense of danger must not disappear:
the way is certainly both short and steep.
However gradual it looks from here,
look if you like, but you will have to leap.

To be people of faith is to commit ourselves to a way of life that involves decision and risk. Look if you like, but you will have to leap. I love Alan Culpepper’s reading of the Nicodemus story in John 3. Nicodemus was faced with a choice: One whose life is secure, at least in worldly terms, must face those whose life is insecure and decide, “I am one of them.” I am glad we are talking about security; but from a Christian perspective, while security for the other is of real concern, security for myself is not a primary value.

Two years ago, when I preached at Ecumenical Advocacy Days, I declared that we gather not just with strategies and programs but with an alternative view of life in human society. Tonight I suggest to you that we have gathered as hopeful realists. We know that life is filled with anxiety – about finding or keeping a job, about health care for ourselves and our loved ones, about safety for our children. And, yes, we know the violence that can strike ordinary people, even in this country. But we will not be ruled by it, or allow our view of the world to be defined by it, because we also know another story about a love capable of bearing even the terror of the cross.

We who gather for Ecumenical Advocacy Days are sometimes accused (like the NCC) of being political left-wing, but we are far more radical than that! We are followers of One who calls us to live vulnerably that others may be secure, and who dare suggest that this is the deepest sort of realism.

We who gather here are often called activists, but ours is not an anxious human effort to create a better world. Our advocacy grows out of our confidence that in Christ God has acted to overcome evil and even death. As Henri Nouwen once put it, “an activist wants to heal, restore, redeem, and re-create, but those acting within the house of God point through their action to the healing, restoring, redeeming, and re-creating presence of God.”

Thanks for all you do to point to the grace of God! Thanks for being hopeful realists. And thanks for inviting me to share these thoughts.

Michael Kinnamon
General Secretary
National Council of Churches

HAMM: Moving Forward Together

2008-03-11T14:39:00.000-04:00

MOVING FORWARD TOGETHER
Disciples of Christ – United Church of Christ Lunch
Ecumenical Advocacy Days
Washington D.C.
March 8, 2008

Eph 6:12, Colossians 2:14

Sitting at breakfast this morning, listening to the original rendition of “Ball and Chain,” I thought: it is so cool to be a part of two denominations that have such far reaching cultural influence! I mean, the United Church of Christ has Barack O’Bama and the Disciples of Christ have Janis Joplin!

OK. OK. We Disciples had James Garfield and Lyndon Johnson, too!

I welcome the opportunity to say something about the new ecumenical ministry of which I am a part, Christian Churches Together. To those of you who are Disciples, I know the name makes this sound like some kind of a Stone-Campbell outfit. It is certainly sympathetic with the Stone-Campbell plea for unity among Christians, but it is much broader than our little reform movement (which has now divided twice over how it is we are going to reunite Christians!).

Christian Churches Together grew out of conversations between heads of communions and ecumenical officers back in 1999, including John Thomas, Lydia Veliko, Robert Welsh, and me. We realized that a new table of conversation was needed, one that extended beyond “the usual suspects”…..among whom the Disciples and the UCC are always present. Those conversations eventually led to the constituting of a new organization one year ago at a meeting in Pasadena, California. Christian Churches Together has been growing, so that we today count among our ranks 36 communions and 6 Christian organizations. One of the things that sets us apart from other ecumenical organizations is that our by-laws provide for up to 20% of CCT’s participants to be organizations.

The communions of CCT are grouped in five “families”: Catholic, Orthodox, Historic Protestant, Evangelical/Pentecostal, and Racial/Ethnic. Though the Roman Catholic Church has had observers involved in most all significant American ecumenical movements of the past century, they have chosen to be formal participants in Christian Churches Together through the Conference of Catholic Bishops.

The concept of a “Racial/ethnic family” is now being reconsidered. It was originally created in order to be sure that people of color and various ethnicities are present in every conversation. However, as often happens in such legitimate efforts to be just, in has become a “ghetto” of sorts. It may become the “Historic Black Church family”, since we find that churches like the Korean Presbyterian Church feel more at home relating to Historic Protestants than to Historic Black Churches. On the other hand, we are seeking to grow CCT’s Hispanic participation, and we are not sure how they will want to approach the question. So, stay tuned on this matter.

We have chosen two focuses for our conversations and action: evangelism and domestic poverty. One of the delightful discoveries among the Historic Protestants has been that the Evangelicals and Pentecostals see these two focuses as being connected, just as we do!

The six organizations that participate in CCT are Bread For The World, Habitat For Humanity, Call to Renewal/Sojourners, World Vision, the American Bible Society, and Evangelicals for Social Action. That’s a lot of horsepower and one of our challenges is figuring out how these organizations, which are so clear in their purposes and strategies, can be a resource to churches that are all over the map in terms of how they ordinarily address domestic poverty, for example.

In some ways this is the same challenge a group like DPF or DJAN or GLAD (and their UCC counterparts) face when we seek to do advocacy work. With relatively clear strategies and outcomes identified, it is easy for us to race ahead of the churches (especially the congregations). I’ll come back to this in a moment.

At this point, CCT is a national organization. We do not yet have a strategy for engaging local communities and congregations in the national expression. We may establish local expressions of CCT, but I think it more likely that we will simply offer our model for folks to utilize locally. The model seeks to span the five families of Christians that most of us see in our communities, it seeks to work by consensus, and it places a high value on discernment over-against mere democracy. CCT is seeking to visibly embody expressions of our Christ given unity, but we are not seeking the merger of denominational structures. We are seeking to be open to the gifts each communion, each organization, each Christian brother and sister brings to the table. Together we are smarter than we are alone; together we can see a more complete picture of faithfulness; together we can have an impact that none can have alone.

Some have feared that CCT might compete with or undercut the National Council of Churches. But many of CCT’s participants are member churches of the NCC, and none of us want to undercut ANY ecumenical group. Michael Kinnamon and I, and Patrice Rosner of CUiC, are taking care to be helpful to each other and not to damage each other’s programs or organizations. The three organizations are distinctly different when viewed on a continuum of ecclesial organizations ranging from being in association with each other to being mutually committed to being fully church with one another. CUiC is toward the “fully church” end of the scale, recognizing one another’s ministers, and engaging in the sacraments with one another.

The communions that make up the National Council of Churches have made strong commitments to one another to seek ways to do mission together. The communions and organizations of Christian Churches Together have merely decided to engage one another in fellowship, and in exploration of ways to share in mission.

I believe there is a place for each of these three different kinds of organizations on the ecclesial continuum and on the continuum of faithful approaches to witness for Gospel justice. I believe these three (the NCC, CUiC and CCT) are each expressions of the work of the Holy Spirit within the grossly divided church of Jesus Christ of the 21st century.

As we gather this weekend, all of us have two primary challenges before us: one is to convince our government officials that justice and mercy should be among the core values of any nation that would be “great”. The second challenge that confronts every one of us here is the need for the conversion of the church in general and of our two churches, the United Church of Christ and the Disciples of Christ, in particular.

My friends, we often do a far better job of lobbying our government than seeking the conversion of the church. Both are important, yet it is the latter that may have more lasting importance.

Our proclamations to Congress and other governmental bodies may be right-on, but unless those politicians see that our voices represent not just several hundred leaders of congregations, conferences and regions, and national expressions of our churches, but more than a million voting Americans who are our members….well, our voices will often lack the needed political power to turn the tide for good.

And we also know that even our two churches cannot do this work alone. We must form coalitions, not only among Catholics and mainline Protestants, as usual, but across the old denominational and theological dividing walls of hostility. Walls that have encouraged us to demonize one another, that have caused us to assume the worst about each other as Mainliners, Evangelicals and Pentecostals. I tell you friends, Jim Wallis and Ron Sider and others have built a social awareness among evangelicals, especially, that is bearing tremendous fruit. We need to be working with those kinds of organizations as well as our own Mainline Protestant vehicles.

I view Lyndon Johnson as one of the tragic figures of American history. He was a president who helped to bring about the Civil Rights revolution through powerful legislation. Yet, he was also the president that got us most deeply embroiled in the Viet Nam war. I’d like to believe that in his local Disciples congregation he absorbed the best of what our nation represents, freedom and justice for all, so that he was moved to risk leading out on Civil Rights legislation. But I’m afraid it was probably also in church that he absorbed the worst that our nation represents as well: empire, arrogance, and hubris, which led to the abyss of Viet Nam (and which drove us into Iraq).

Sadly, tragically, the church is so often captive to the same “principalities and powers” as is the nation itself. “Principalities and powers” is the phrase used by Paul as translated in the Revised Standard Version of the Bible. It is one of a couple of places where I prefer the RSV to the NRSV. Another place is Psalm 50:9. Whenever I write a letter to the President, I like to put “Psalm 50:9 RSV” under my name. The RSV reads, “I will accept no bull from your house!”

I also like that phrase “principalities and powers.” Call it systemic evil, if you will. Most of our members, and often we ourselves, are so steeped in American individualism that we are unaware of the presence of “principalities and powers”, the presence of systemic evil. And when we are unaware of it, we are most likely to be used by it. By all means, we should continue making our public statements and doing our lobbying – indeed, we should redouble our efforts along these lines.

But we must also give attention to the more foundational task before us – nothing less than the conversion of the church, it’s transformation, that it may become the instrument of justice, kindness and mercy that was envisioned by the Prophet Micah; that it may develop into…..how shall I say it?.....a true community, with deep Christian spirituality and a passion for justice.

It’s a privilege to be among you all. I thank you for the opportunity to share a little about Christian Churches Together today and I thank God for your partnership in the fullness of the Gospel.

Rev. Dr. Richard Hamm
Executive Manager
Christian Churches Together

SPECIAL ADVOCACY DAYS EVENT FOR DISCIPLES & UCC

2008-03-10T11:43:00.003-04:00

Two ecumenical leaders from the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) joined other speakers in addressing two special shared gatherings of the Disciples of Christ and the United Church of Christ at this year's Ecumenical Advocacy Days for Global Peace with Justice.

At a special lunch gathering for both groups, Dr. Richard Hamm spoke about his work as Executive Administrator of Christian Churches Together, a new coalition of 36 communions and 6 organizations. As Dr. Hamm explained to participants, "All of us have two primary challenges before us: one is to convince our government officials that justice and mercy should be among the core values of any nation that would be 'great'." The other is "the need for the conversion of the church in general and of our two churches, the United Church of Christ and the Disciples of Christ, in particular." He continued by saying, "My friends, we often do a far better job of lobbying our government than seeking the conversion of the church. Both are important, yet it is the latter that may have more lasting importance."

Later, at a special evening event for Disciples and members of the UCC, the Rev. Dr. Michael Kinnamon, new General Secretary of the National Council of Churches, spoke about his vision of unity, justice, and global security within a framework of ecumenical social ethics. In his presentation, Dr. Kinnamon strongly disagreed with Christians who argue that "when theology and politics . . . are brought together as equal goals, politics always ends up dominating and the ecumenical movement becomes simply another arena for pursuing political agendas." According to Kinnamon, "My whole ministry has been to hold these two streams together." He therefore called for a "hopeful realism" in which Christians refuse to give themselves over to either despair or "wishful thinking," but rather to "imagine the world as our gracious God would have it be, and then let that set our secular agenda."

Other speakers at the evening event included the Rev. Noemi Mena, pastor of Iglesia Cristiana Nacional at National City Christian Church and the Rev. Ann Calvin Rogers-Witte, co-executive of Global Ministries. The Rev. Dr. John Deckenback, Conference Minister for the Central Atlantic Conference of the United Church of Christ, shared with everyone a slide show about his recent trip to Jordan and Iraq.

The event was moderated by Kristen Walling, an undergraduate student at American University and a member of National City Christian Church, who was hailed by Kinnamon as "a future leader of our church."

The event was sponsored by the following organizations: the Disciples Justice Action Network, Justice and Witness Ministries of the United Church of Christ,, the Disciples Center for Public Witness, the Disciples Peace Fellowship, Christians for Justice Action, Global Ministries, and the Disciples Advocacy and Witness Network of the Christian Church Capital Area.

Local Disciples Participate in Special Event with UCC at Ecumenical Advocacy Days

2008-03-10T00:12:00.004-04:00

The Rev. Noemi Mena (Pastor of Iglesia Cristiani Nacional at National City Christian Church), Dr. Robert Perry (Senior Minister of the Inter-Faith Chapel at Leisure World), and Kristen Walling (an undergraduate student at American University and a member of National City Christian Church) joined with national leaders Dr. Michael Kinnamon (General Secretary of the National Council of Churches), Callie Rogers-Witte (Co-Executive of Global Ministries), and Dr. Richard Hamm (Executive Administrator of Christian Churches Together) at an advocacy event for Disciples and members of the United Church of Christ at this year's Ecumenical Advocacy Days for Global Peace with Justice. Local Disciples were invited to join conference participants from across the nation for this special event.

Dr. Perry opened the Saturday evening event with greetings and prayer, welcoming all participants on behalf of the Christian Church Capital Area and the sponsoring organizations: the Disciples Justice Action Network, Justice and Witness Ministries of the United Church of Christ,, the Disciples Center for Public Witness, the Disciples Peace Fellowship, Christians for Justice Action, Global Ministries, and the Disciples Advocacy and Witness Network of the Christian Church Capital Area.

Dr. Kinnamon then spoke to participants about his vision of unity, justice, and global security within a framework of ecumenical social ethics. In his presentation, Dr. Kinnamon strongly disagreed with Christians who argue that "when theology and politics . . . are brought together as equal goals, politics always ends up dominating and the ecumenical movement becomes simply another arena for pursuing political agendas." According to Kinnamon, "My whole ministry has been to hold these two streams together." He therefore called for a "hopeful realism" in which Christians refuse to give in to either despair or "wishful thinking," but rather to "imagine the world as our gracious God would have it be, and then let that set our secular agenda."

Rev. Rogers-Witte spoke about the cooperation between the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) and the United Church of Christ in our shared Global Ministries projects, and told compelling stories about the difference our common work was making in the lives of poor people and struggling communities throughout the world--as well as in the lives and outlook of those who have been part of diverse mission teams.

Rev. Mena then shared with the group a story about a woman who came to her convinced that she and her family were under a cursed: she was seeking something holy to combat this curse. Mena made the point that in order to be relevant and effective and true to its calling, the church at all levels--ecumenical, denominational, and local--must be the kind of church that can "break the curse" of poverty, racism, violence, and so many other demonic and destructive forces by providing suffering people with more than words and pity, but rather with something spiritually and physically powerful, "something holy."

At the conclusion of the event, the Rev. Dr. John Deckenback, Conference Minister for the Central Atlantic Conference of the United Church of Christ, shared with everyone a slide show about his recent trip to Jordan and Iraq.

The event was closed with thank yous and a prayer from moderator Kristen Walling, hailed by Kinnamon as "a future leader of our church."

Audio and video recordings will soon be available. For more information, please check back here.