Documents, Declarations, Letters, Writings & Speeches of Dr. Ron Sider Ph.D

Ev a n g e l i c a l sf o rS o c i a lAc t i o n T hedocument s ,decl ar at i ons , l et t er s ,wr i t i ngsands peechesof Dr .RonS i derPh. D

Evangel i cal sf orS oci al Act i on 6EL ancas t erAve WynnewoodPA19096 4843842990 Evangel i cal s f or S oci al Act i on. or g Copyr i ght Š19802011Evangel i cal sf orS oci al Act i on/ T heS i derCent eratPal merT heol ogi cal S emi nar yofEas t er nUni ver s i t y

T abl eofCont ent s Document s ,Decl ar at i ons ,L et t er s&Hi s t or y 1 19 21

AnEvangel i cal Decl ar at i onAgai ns tT or t ur e:Pr ot ect i ngHumanRi ght si nanAgeofT er r or Chi cagoDecl ar at i onofEvangel i cal S oci al Concer n

Chr i s t i anChur chesT oget her( CCT )i st hel ar ges tas s oci at i onofChr i s t i ansi nt heU. S .wi t hover100mi l l i on member s .ES Ai samember .RonS i ders er vesont heS t eer i ngCommi t t eeandchai r st hePover t yCommi t t ee.Att he 2007annual meet i ngi nPas adenai nF ebr uar y,CCTi s s uedt hef ol l owi ngunani mouss t at ementondomes t i cpover t y: Chr i s t i anChur chesT oget herS t at ementonPover t y

23 35 40 51

F ort heHeal t hoft heNat i on:AnEvangel i cal Cal l t oCi vi cRes pons i bi l i t y Hi s t or yofEvangel i cal sf orS oci al Act i on T hatT heyMayHaveL i f e:AS t at ementofEvangel i cal sandCat hol i csT oget her T woS t at eS ol ut i on:AL et t ert oPr es i dentObama( s i gnedby54pr omi nentChr i s t i anl eader sf r om al l maj or

t r adi t i ons )

Sel ect edSpeechesandWr i t i ngs 55 62 64 70 86 95 113 120 129 136 142 159 173 188

Ar eEvangel i cal sGoi ngt oHel l ?( Or :DoWeBel i eveWhatJ es usS ai d?)

Chr i s t i ansS eekL ove,NotHat e Evangel i cal sandS t r uct ur al I nj us t i ce Eval uat i ngt heF ai t hBas edI ni t i at i ve:I sChar i t abl eChoi ceGoodPubl i cPol i cy?

F r om S of tPat r i ar chyt oMut ual S ubmi s s i on God' sS peci al Concer nf ort hePoor I ' m NotaS oci al Act i vi s t J es us ' Cal l T oBePeacemaker s S chol ar ,Popul ar i z erandAct i vi s t :Per s onal Ref l ect i onsonMyJ our ney T ot heChur chi nNor t hAmer i ca— F r om OneWhoi sBot hL overandCr i t i c T owar danEvangel i cal Pol i t i cal Phi l os ophy Whati fweDef i nedt heGos pel t heWayJ es usDi d?

WhyWoul dAnyoneEverWantt obeanEvangel i cal ?

Wi l l YouBeAnyDi f f er ent ?

AN EVANGELICAL DECLARATION AGAINST TORTURE: PROTECTING HUMAN RIGHTS IN AN AGE OF TERROR: 1. Introduction 1.1

The sanctity of human life, a moral status irrevocably bestowed by the Creator upon each person and confirmed in the costly atoning sacrifice of Christ on the Cross, is desecrated each day in many ways around the globe. Because we are Christians who are commanded by our Lord Jesus Christ to love God with all of our being and to love our neighbors as ourselves (Mt. 22:36-40), this mistreatment of human persons comes before us as a source of sorrow and a call to action.

1.2

All humans who are mistreated or tormented are somebody’s brothers and sisters, sons and daughters, parents and grandparents. We must think of them as we would our own children or parents. They are, by Jesus’ definition, our neighbors (Lk. 10:25-37). They are “the least of these,” and so in them and through them we encounter God himself (Mt. 25:31-46). “When human lives are endangered, when human dignity is in jeopardy, national borders and sensitivities become irrelevant,” Elie Wiesel declares. “Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.”1

1.3

However remote to us may be the victim of torture, abuse, or mistreatment, Christians must seek to develop the moral imagination to enter into the suffering of all who are victimized. Having personally witnessed the horrors of the Cambodian genocide of the 1970s, Robert A. Evans writes: “The motivation of basic human rights can never again become a matter of statistics, or theory, or strategy, or legislation, or judicial decision. It will always be, for me, the violation of the dignity of other children of God.”2 Commitment to a transcendent moral vision of human dignity which is rooted in the concrete reality of particular suffering human beings motivates the signers of this statement as well.

1.4

The authors and signatories of this declaration are evangelical Christians and citizens of the United States. As Christians, we long to obey the moral demands of our faith as articulated in the Scriptures. We seek to serve Jesus Christ, who alone is Lord of our lives, of the church, of our nation, and of the world. As citizens, we bring our Christian convictions to bear on the most important matters that arise in the life of our democracy, for the health of our nation and its impact on the lives of people around the world. We know that we may not always succeed in shaping the laws and policies of the United States in the way we believe they should be shaped. But we must, on all occasions, attempt to bear faithful Christian moral witness.

1

Wiesel, Elie. “Acceptance Speech for 1986 Nobel Peace Prize.” Oslo, December 10, 1986. http://www.eliewieselfiundation.org/ElieWiesel/speech.html, September 28, 2006.

2

Robert A. Evans and Alice Frazer Evans, Human Rights: A Dialogue Between the First and Third Worlds (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 1988), 3-4.

1.5

The immediate occasion for this declaration is the intense debate that has occurred in our country since 2004 over the use of torture and cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment of those who are detained by our nation and other nations in the “war on terror.”3 In 20052006 this debate evolved into a broader discussion of policies related to the legal standards that would be employed in detaining, trying, transferring, or punishing suspected terrorists in what is turning out to be a lengthy struggle against individuals and groups engaged in terrorist plots and acts against our nation.

1.6

This cluster of issues would not have arisen if not for the horrifying and heinous attacks of 9/11, which took nearly 3,000 lives and constituted a mass violation of the very moral standards we witness to in this declaration. The U.S. response to these attacks, including intensified intelligence activities, the invasion of Afghanistan, and later the much-debated invasion of Iraq, has led to the apprehension of thousands of “enemy combatants,” terrorists, suspected terrorists, and others. The question we now face is how we protect our society (and other societies) from further terrorist acts within a framework of moral and legal norms. As American Christians, we are above all motivated by a desire that our nation’s actions would be consistent with foundational Christian moral norms. We believe that a scrupulous commitment to human rights, among which is the right not to be tortured, is one of these Christian moral convictions.

2. The Sanctity of Human Life “And God said, ‘Let us make human beings in our image, in our likeness. …So God created human beings in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.”

Genesis 1:26a, 27

2.1

We ground our commitment to human rights, including the rights of suspected terrorists, in the core Christian belief that human life is sacred. Evangelicals join a vast array of other Christian groups and thinkers—Roman Catholics, mainline Protestants, Eastern Orthodox, and others—in a long history of reflection and activism on behalf of this critical yet threatened moral conviction.

2.2

The sanctity of life is the conviction that all human beings, in any and every state of consciousness or self-awareness, of any and every race, color, ethnicity, level of intelligence, religion, language, nationality, gender, character, behavior, physical ability/disability, potential, class, social status, etc., of any and every particular quality of relationship to the viewing subject, are to be perceived as sacred, as persons of equal and immeasurable worth and of inviolable dignity. Therefore they must be treated with the reverence and respect commensurate with this elevated moral status. This begins with a commitment to the preservation of their lives and protection of their basic rights.

3

We use quotation marks for this term because we are not convinced of the precision or cogency of a war on “terror,” which is at one level a tactic (terrorism) and at another level a feeling (terror). We do not use the term with quotation marks in order to downplay the significance of the terrorist acts that have been directed at other nations and our nation in the past two decades.

Understood in all of its fullness, it includes a commitment to the flourishing of every person’s life.4 2.3

Christian belief in the sanctity of human life is rooted in themes that work their way through the entire biblical canon as well as much of Jewish, Christian, and Western moral thought. Rightly understood, the sanctity of life is a moral norm that both summarizes and transcends all other particular norms in Christian moral thought.

2.4

Scripture reveals that life is sacred. Humans, in particular, are given life by the breath of God (Gen. 2:7) and are made in the image of God (Gen. 1:26-28). The imago Dei serves as a common denominator for all of humanity. Every human being, therefore, deserves respect.

2.5

The sanctity of life is emphasized in legal and covenantal texts in Scripture. Murder is forbidden because human beings are made in the image of God; this theme is evident in the covenants both with Noah and with Moses (Gen. 9:5-6; Ex. 20:13). Everyone has a duty to conserve and respect human life (Gen. 9:5; 4:8-10, 15), and to accept responsibility for the life of their fellow humans (Gen. 4:9; Dt. 21:1-9). Human life is sacred because it is “precious” to God (Ps. 116:15) and must therefore be precious to us as well. The prophets remind Israel of the value of human life, especially life at its most vulnerable (Is. 1:17; Jer. 7:6; Zech. 7:10).

2.6

The incarnation (Jn. 1:1, 14) permanently and decisively elevates the value of human life.

It reveals a God who is not dispassionate, but deeply moved by the brokenness of creation.5 The incarnation demonstrates the extraordinary value God places upon human life. It also signifies a mysterious bridging of the gap between God and humanity.

Henceforth, the human experience in its joys and sorrows is inscribed upon the very Person of God in a new way. Furthermore, the Holy Spirit participates in human pathos with groans and sighs too deep for words. The cries of the tortured are in a very real sense, then, the cries of the Spirit.

2.7

Jesus Christ, God-made-flesh, taught the dignity of human life and practiced it in his treatment of those around him. He reaffirmed the biblical commands which are intended to protect human life. He diagnosed the vicious patterns of sinful behavior that lead us to violate God’s commands, and the sickness of the heart and mind that lie behind that sinful behavior. He offered teachings amounting to transforming initiatives to enable us to obey God’s will. This is most clearly illustrated in his single largest block of teaching, the Sermon on the Mount (Mt. 5-7).

2.8

In his ministry, Jesus in all contexts treated persons as sacred in God’s sight. This was especially apparent in the way he treated the marginalized: women, the sick, the dead, the poor, people of bad reputation, children, and enemies of Israel such as tax collectors, 4 5

David P. Gushee, The Sanctity of Life: A Christian Exploration (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, forthcoming).

IVP New Dictionary of Christian Ethics and Pastoral Theology, ed. David J. Atkinson, et al (Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press, 1995) 757-758.

Roman soldiers, and gentiles in general. He explicitly affirms the worth of human beings in his teaching (Lk. 12:24; Mt. 6:26; 12:11-12). He taught peacemaking rather than violence, and on the Cross forgave those who assisted in killing him. He also stood with both the Law and the prophets before him in condemning injustice in its various forms: economic, political, military, and religious (cf. Mt. 23). The justice teachings of Jesus are closely related to a commitment to life’s sanctity and serve as a fundamental building block of a Christian commitment to human rights.

2.9

For many centuries, Jesus’ teaching about the “least of these” (Mt. 25:31-46) has been especially significant for shaping a Christian moral vision of the sanctity of every human life. Not only does this familiar “sheep and goats” parable emphasize the centrality of practical deeds of service to the least, the last, and the lost, it also teaches us to see Jesus in the hungry, the stranger, the naked, the sick, and the imprisoned: “as you did it unto the least of these, you did it unto me” (Mt. 25:40). This dramatic shift of moral vision has profound implications for how we as Christians think about our nation’s imprisoned, sometimes hungry, sometimes sick, sometimes naked strangers.

2.10

Ultimately, it is the Cross of Jesus Christ that demonstrates how much God values human life. God-in-flesh dies, at human hands, for human beings who do not love him and are not worthy of his costly sacrifice. “While we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.”

Radical human equality is emphasized in the reason for this death, the universality of its scope, and the equality of its impact. At the Cross and in the Resurrection, by saying no to his Son’s cry of dereliction, God says yes to all of derelict humanity.

2.11

Considered etymologically, a sacred thing is something that has already been sanctified, dedicated, consecrated, venerated, or hallowed. One might say, then, that our holy God has transferred his holiness onto us and therefore sanctified each person. This confers upon each of us a dignity that our attitudes, attributes, and activities neither deserve nor can nullify.6

2.12

In his Gospel of Life, Pope John Paul II asserts the sacred value of human life “from its very beginning until its end.” He urges a fight against “the culture of death” and a holistic and comprehensive struggle to protect vulnerable humans, sacred in God’s sight.

2.13

John Paul II is among those who have made the connection explicit: the concept of human rights is inextricably bound to the belief that human life is sacred and therefore must be held in the highest respect. “Upon the recognition of this right, every human community and the political community itself are founded.”7 Indeed, by focusing on human rights, we direct our attention and energy to those who need it most—those image-bearers whose dignity is being violated.8 Human rights are not first of all about 6

Gushee, The Sanctity of Life, 3.

7

Pope John Paul II, The Gospel of Life, (New York: Random House, Inc., 1995), 2-4.

8

Glen Stassen, “Foreword,” in Christopher D. Marshall, Crowned with Glory and Honor: Human Rights in the Biblical Tradition, vol. 6, 11-14, Studies in Peace and Scripture (Telford, PA: Pandora Press U.S., 2001), 11.

"my rights,” but about the rights of the vulnerable and the violated. And they are about responsibility, indeed obligation, to defend the weak. All people, all societies, and all nations have a responsibility to ensure human rights.

2.14

We believe that a commitment to human rights is strengthened profoundly by the kinds of theological commitments just articulated. They are certainly our convictions. We are very happy to work with persons of other faiths and no faith on behalf of human rights, but as evangelicals our convictions are rooted in God's love and the dignity it gives to all human beings.

3. Human Rights “Defend the weak and the fatherless; uphold the cause of the poor and the oppressed.

Rescue the weak and the needy.”

Psalms 82:3-4a

3.1

Human rights function to protect the dignity of human life.9 Because human rights guard what God has made sacred, they cannot be cancelled by any other concern, nor can they be bracketed off as irrelevant in exigent circumstances. This is in contrast to the view that a right can be cancelled or overridden. Human rights are a decisive factor in determining how all persons must be treated in all circumstances.10 Rights correlate with duties— fundamentally, a duty to protect those whose God-given rights are about to be, or are being, violated.11 Those who affirm a belief in human rights implicitly accept for themselves a range of moral obligations.12 Affirmation of human rights and their corresponding duties is an important dimension of Christian belief, and also widely shared by persons of other faiths.

3.2

Human rights place a shield around people, even when (especially when) our hearts cry out for vengeance. It is precisely when we are most inclined to abandon a commitment to human rights that we most need to reaffirm that commitment.13 The creation of a social

9

Per Sundman, “Human Rights, Justification, and Christian Ethics” (Ph. D. diss., Uppsala University, 1996), 41.

10

Sundman, 45.

11

Stassen, “Foreword,” 12.

12

Christopher D. Marshall, Crowned with Glory and Honor: Human Rights in the Biblical Tradition, vol.6, Studies in Peace and Scripture (Telford, PA: Pandora Press U.S., 2001), 34.

13

An example from another context helps illustrate our point. In 2000, a young teenage girl in New Zealand was abducted by a neighbor. She was sexually violated, and then buried alive. She died a horrible death.

The murderer was tried, convicted, and imprisoned for life according to the laws of New Zealand, but this did not satisfy the girl’s stepfather. He was subsequently convicted for repeatedly hurling murderous threats at her killer. Hailed as a hero, the stepfather had overwhelming public opinion in his favor. One supporter said of the girl’s killer, “When you commit that kind of crime, you give up your rights. That kind of person is not even human.” A columnist for the New Zealand Herald, however, wrote in support of the judge’s

order in which such legal and moral norms are honored even in the teeth of popular sentiment is both a high human achievement, and a fragile one.

3.3

Human rights apply to all humans. The rights people have are theirs by virtue of being human, made in God’s image. Persons can never be stripped of their humanity, regardless of their actions or of others’ actions toward them. In social contract theory human rights are called unalienable rights. Unalienable rights are absolute and completely inviolable; a person cannot legitimately cease to have those rights, whether through waiver, fault, or another’s act.14 This is not biblical vocabulary, but it does seem to us consistent with a biblical understanding of human rights. Consider the way in which even Cain was protected by the divine “mark,” and legal provision to protect the rights of killers was made in the Old Testament through the cities of refuge and the processes of judgment required there (Num. 35:9-34).

3.4

Some Christians reject human rights language because they have witnessed its abuse.

They have heard numerous groups claim a right to engage in certain behaviors as expressions of their human rights. Many morally troublesome agendas are punctuated with “rights-talk,” thereby cheapening those rights that are indeed both unalienable and threatened.15 But the solution is not to abandon talk of rights. It is instead to clarify the range of legitimate rights-claims.

3.5

A variety of approaches can be taken to articulate and organize claims about human rights. An expansive approach argues that there are three dimensions of human rights, and all must be equally valued by any society that respects any of them: the right to certain freedoms, especially including religious liberty, the right to participate in community, and the right to have basic needs met. 16

3.6

If one takes a more constrained approach to human rights, such as the view which confines human rights to “negative rights,” i.e., that which the state may not do to us, the issues under discussion in this declaration still fall well within the boundaries of legitimate human rights-claims.

3.7

Human life is expressed through physicality, and the well-being of persons is tied to their physical existence. Therefore, humans must have the right to security of person. This includes the right not to have one’s life taken unjustly (equivalent to the right to life), the right not to have one’s body mutilated, and the right not to be abused, maimed, tortured, molested, or starved (sometimes called the right to bodily integrity or the right to remain decision. Criticizing the public’s lust for vengeance, he insisted that even the murderers of children “still have basic human rights and a decent society ensures those rights are upheld.”

14

Sundman, 38, 44.

15

Mary Ann Glendon, Rights Talk. New York: Free Press, 2004.

16

Glen H. Stassen, Just Peacemaking: Transforming Initiatives for Justice and Peace (Louisville: Westminster/ John Knox Press, 1992), 138, 159.

whole). The right not to be arbitrarily detained (an aspect of due process) and the writ of habeus corpus are also based specifically on the concept of bodily rights. In particular, the writ of habeus corpus is based on the right not to have the government arbitrarily detain one's body.

4. The Christian History of Human Rights “Thus says the Lord: ‘Do justice and righteousness, and deliver from the hand of the oppressor him who has been robbed. And do no wrong or violence to the alien, the fatherless, and the widow, nor shed any blood.”

Jeremiah 22:3 4.1

Contrary to a common misunderstanding, one that has weakened Christian support for human rights, human rights are not an Enlightenment notion, and certainly not to be seen as an Enlightenment fiction. Rooted in Scripture, the concept of human rights was suggested as far back as the 12th century, and can be traced into the modern period through a variety of routes, all of them versions of Christianity. Heirs to the English Christian traditions find especially important the work of Richard Overton, an English Christian thinker of the 17th century. In 1645, Overton wrote The Arraignment of Mr. Persecution, basing his argument on reason, experience, and Scripture. The book was penned during a time of great oppression of religious nonconformists in England.

Overton proclaimed the equal rights of Jews, Muslims, atheists, Catholics, Protestants, and all humankind.17

4.2

Thus human rights ideas developed in the English-speaking world during a movement for religious liberty among “free church” Puritans in England, and later among religious dissenters in North America like Roger Williams, and not first among Enlightenment rationalists.18 The concept of human rights flourished in the 17th and 18th centuries with documents such as the American Declaration of Independence (1776), the French Assembly’s Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen (1789), and Thomas Paine’s The Rights of Man expressing the belief in “natural rights.”19 More secularized versions of human rights should be seen as derivatives of an earlier, explicitly Christian, articulation.

4.3

The late 19th century proved an inhospitable environment for belief in “natural rights” worldwide, in both philosophical and political arenas. However, the totalitarian assault on human dignity in the first half of the 20th century, especially by Nazi Germany, Stalinist Russia, and Imperialist Japan, led to a reinterpretation of traditional natural-rights talk in the direction of “human rights.”20 Reacting to the devastation of the Nazi regime, and 17

Christopher D. Marshall, 148.

18

Michael Westmoreland White, "Setting the Record Straight: Christian Faith, Human Rights, and the Enlightenment," Annual of the Society of Christian Ethics (1995), 75-96.

19

Christopher D. Marshall, 29.

20

Christopher D. Marshall, 29-30.

responding to the struggle by colonies for independence from their colonial masters, human rights gained worldwide momentum once again. Shortly after World War II, the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights was written, and then signed by the vast majority of nations.21 The United States played a key role in drafting and advancing this UN Declaration. Many deeply committed Christians were involved in this process.

Evangelicals struggled with the secular grounding of the Declaration’s norms, but both then and now embrace its primary principles.

4.4

The Roman Catholic Church and the second Vatican Council (1962-1965) brought about another development in the maturation of the concept of human rights. Strongly affirming religious liberty after centuries of teaching otherwise, the Vatican II leaders, as with Overton, articulated strong concern for world peace and drew the connections between war and the violation of human rights. 22 A similar emphasis on human rights appears in many of the documents of the global ecumenical movement, as well as mainline Protestant theologians such as Reinhold Niebuhr. Meanwhile, the social movement of the 1950s and 1960s for African-American civil rights provided a powerful articulation of a heartfelt human rights ethic. It is hard to avoid the conclusion that an emphasis on human rights was very nearly a Christian consensus by the late 20th century.

4.5

Yet talk of human rights evokes opposition as well. We have already noted theological and philosophical objections. But throughout history the primary opposition to a concept of human rights has emerged most intensely from privileged groups (religious, economic, political, ethnic, etc.) determined to maintain their unjust advantages or resist challenges to their mistreatment of those whom they dominated. Meanwhile, support for human rights has helped to spread democracy and in general to break the power of unjust social structures.23

4.6

Love for one’s neighbor should motivate the believer to act in the interests of those whose rights we are responsible to defend. Commitment to human rights can be seen as a systematic way to look out for the interests of others, and thus as an expression of Christian love. This is now the overwhelming consensus of the Christian community.

5. Ethical Implications of Human Rights “Father to the fatherless, a defender of widows, is God in his holy dwelling. God sets the lonely in families, he leads out the prisoners with singing.”

Psalms 68:5-6

21

Stassen, “Foreword,” 11-12.

22

Stassen, Just Peacemaking, 156.

23

Stassen, “Foreword,” 13.

Principles 5.1

It is vital for the future of any good society and for the development of democracy that we, as citizens of the United States and as Christians belonging to the Body of Christ, promote and protect the innate dignity of the human person and therefore honor human rights. In the last century we have witnessed far too many attempts to abolish that divine value in humanity, and to treat human beings in ways far worse than bestial. However, as Pope John Paul II stated, the sanctity of life is a value “which no individual, no majority and no State can ever create, modify or destroy, but must only acknowledge, respect and promote.”24

5.2

Even when a person has done wrong, poses a threat, or has information necessary to prevent a terrorist attack, he or she is still a human being made in God’s image, still a person of immeasurable worth. The crime we abhor, but we must distinguish the error from the person in error. A person might do inhuman acts, but is never inhuman.25 This distinction is excruciatingly difficult to make, which is all the more reason why we must be vigilant in doing so.

Responsibilities

5.3

5.4

Individual Responsibility As individuals we are responsible for protecting the dignity of others, as the Good Samaritan did when he went out of his way to minister to the victim he found along his path (Lk. 10:25-37). The Lord brings justice, and governments have resources not available to individuals, but that does not release each of us from the obligation to make an urgent and concerted effort to raise every bearer of the image of God to the dignified level at which he or she was intended by the Creator.26 We live in a free society, a representative democracy, and while only a few may be direct perpetrators of human rights violations or even torture, we all share the responsibility because we are the citizens on whose behalf interrogators and military personnel are working. Whether we commit an offense against humanity, or simply sin by refusing to speak up for someone who is being victimized, as individuals and a society we are accountable for the indignities that are authorized and carried out by our nation.27 We each have responsibility to exercise our right/obligation to participate in the deliberative processes of our democracy. Those who have greater social or political power have even greater moral responsibility to act.

24

Pope John Paul II, 129.

25

Vatican II: The Conciliar and Post Conciliar Documents, 64, Austin Flannery, O. P. ed., PASTORAL CONSTITUTION ON THE CHURCH IN THE MODERN WORLD, “Gaudium et Spes” (December 7, 1965), 929.

26

Paul Marshall, "Human Rights," Toward An Evangelical Public Policy, ed. Ronald J. Sider and Diane Knippers (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2005), 313.

27

Evans and Evans, 3.

5.5

5.6

The Role of the Church The churches have a very important responsibility to prepare their members to be faithful disciples of Christ who witness in and to the various contexts in which we find ourselves.

Church leaders have a critical role in equipping Christians to think and respond biblically in all major areas of life, including the one we are considering here. One aspect of this discipling process is to help congregants prepare for the exercise of their citizenship responsibilities. Evangelicals alone make up one quarter of all voters in the United States.

As evangelicals we are keenly aware of the gravity of our responsibility, and many of us have joined in articulating our own public ethical vision in a document released in 2004, and endorsed by all forty-three members of the Board of the National Association of Evangelicals, “For the Health of the Nation.”28 The Role of the State The government inevitably plays a central role in a nation’s treatment of human beings and respect for human life. Unless human rights are embedded in a nation's constitutional documents, in its legislation, and in fair court procedures, and there is governmental respect for international laws that protect human rights, rights-claims can become mere abstractions that are not implemented in practice. In light of the sinfulness of humanity there is a need for the protection and restraint of laws.

5.7

Governments should be legally obligated to protect basic human rights. The U.S. government certainly is so obligated.

5.8

It is striking that calls in the 1970s and 1980s for the U.S. to advance global human rights initially assumed that human rights were an unquestioned part of our own constitutional order. The idea was to spread that vision around the world.

Evangelicals have been deeply invested in that project. We have pressed for the rights of religious liberty, especially where religious minorities have been persecuted, for the rights of victims of sex trafficking, and for human rights in countries oppressed by dictatorships. Now we find ourselves having to turn our gaze homeward again, to the eroding human rights protections of our own practices.

5.9

The goal of a nation that advances human rights for all is one that has been articulated by our current president and members of his administration. President George W. Bush has described the United States as being born from a “simple dream of dignity.” 29 The American spirit, he has asserted, is “generous and strong and decent, not because we believe in ourselves, but because we hold beliefs beyond ourselves.”30

28

“For the Health of the Nation,” in Toward an Evangelical Public Policy, ed. Ronald J. Sider and Diane Knippers, 363-375, (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2005), 363.

29

Julie A. Mertus, Bait and Switch: Human Rights and U.S. Foreign Policy (New York: Routledge, 2004), 57.

30

Mertus, 57.

5.10

This dream was not lost after 9/11. On October 31, 2001, Lorne W. Craner, Assistant Secretary for the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor, stated: “maintaining the focus on human rights and democracy worldwide is an integral part of our response to the attack [on 9/11]. ... We are proud to bear the mantle of leadership in international human rights in this century.” 31 President Bush’s speeches are full of belief in the dignity of every human life, regardless of political or national distinctions. “The American flag stands for more than our power and our interests,” he has said. “Our founders dedicated this country to the cause of human dignity, the rights of every person, and the possibilities of every life.” 32

5.11

In light of these appealing words, it is clear to us that the terrorist attacks that jolted the nation in 2001 have blurred our national moral vision. National resolve, normally a virtue, can be misdirected, leading to the violation of human rights when it is allowed to overthrow our better selves. As the founding fathers intended, we have checks and balances within our Constitution’s framework where Congress and the courts operate to check the presidency and thereby protect human rights. This is how it should be.

Meanwhile, the United Nations Human Rights Charter and the great number of other human rights documents to which America has added its name serve as additional boundary-setters, so that the government does not act rashly or unjustly.

5.12

The current administration has at times used language that is rich with respect for human rights, even after 9/11. Today this language is less frequently heard, and our actions as a nation do not consistently reflect the values once articulated. Yet there is a structure of national and international principles and laws that can help us to regain our moral footing, and in some ways have already begun to do so.

6. Legal Structures regarding Human Rights “A ruler who lacks understanding is a cruel oppressor, but he who hates unjust gain will prolong his days.”

Proverbs 28:16 International Law

6.1

The Geneva Conventions, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and many other treaties outlining human rights are in place so each signatory nation is held accountable.

6.2

With a raging “war on terror,” American policymakers and interrogators have faced the temptation of looking to torture, and to cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment of their detainees in Iraq, Afghanistan, Guantánamo, and other U.S. detention centers. Torture has often been a temptation (and far too many times a practice) in other countries facing

31

Mertus, 58

32

Mertus, 58.

perceived or actual security threats. Despite these abuses, the articles of the Geneva Convention and of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights are unambiguous.33 6.3

Article 3 of the 3rd Geneva Convention (1949) says: Persons taking no active part in hostilities … shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.

To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons: violence to life and person, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment; an impartial humanitarian body, such as the international committee of the Red Cross, may offer its services to the Parties in conflict.34

6.4

Article 5 of the same Geneva Convention states: “No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment.” Article 9 reads: “No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention, or exile.”35 The U.N. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR--1966) states in article 7 that “no one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.” Article 10 of the ICCPR also establishes a particular right to be treated in a humane and dignified manner for accused or detained persons deprived of their personal liberty.36 This code of conduct is further clarified in the United Nations High Commission on Human Rights Civil and Political Rights, Including the Questions of Torture and Detention (2005).

According to the Geneva Conventions, cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment (CIDT), although falling short of torture, is still completely prohibited along with all forms of torture. “The overriding factor at the core of the prohibition of CIDT is the concept of [the] powerlessness of the victim.”37

6.5

International treaties provide no loopholes for justifying torture or any form of degrading treatment. The ICCPR treaty says that although “in time of public emergency which threatens the life of the nation … the State Parties to the present Covenant may take measures derogating from their obligations under the present Covenant to the extent strictly required by the exigencies of the situation, … no derogation from [article] 7…

33

David Gushee, “Against Torture: An Evangelical Perspective,” in Theology Today, 349-364, vol. 63, No. 3, (October 2006), 351.

34

Geneva Convention (III): Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War (Geneva, 12 August 1949).

35

Third Geneva Convention.

36

Civil and Political Rights, Including the Questions of Torture and Detention, 13.

37

United Nations High Commission on Human Rights, Civil and Political Rights, Including the Questions of Torture and Detention, United Nations Department of Public Record (Geneva, Switzerland, December 23, 2005), 13.

may be made under this provision.”38 The U.N. Convention Against Torture puts it this way: "No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification for torture."39 6.6

The United States is a signatory to all of these international treaties. We have also historically incorporated their principles into military doctrine. However, these practices have come into question during the last five years. We believe that this has been a mistake, and we support a return to full adherence to the straightforward meaning of international conventions against torture.

U.S. Law

6.7

The United States has often sought to position itself as being on the side of the oppressed, including soldiers imprisoned under unjust or cruel circumstances. During the American Revolution, our soldiers were mistreated by the British. Our nation has worked diligently since then to provide legal protection to any person in the custody of the enemy through laws of war.40 The Geneva Conventions and the Additional Protocols of 1977 are the most recent version of this protection. In 1996, the United States adopted the War Crimes Act to make it possible for our courts to enforce the Conventions, and so the U.S. had entered into enforceable compliance with these vital international safeguards.41 It must be remembered that the United States has historically been a leader in pressing for such safeguards, not just a reluctant signatory.

6.8

Since human rights first became a prominent issue in the 20th century, the United Nations and the United States have continued to make additions to former agreements, treaties, and statements in order to make them as comprehensive and relevant as possible.

This is what a democracy should always be doing. Human rights have always been, and always will be, under attack. However, a democracy works to guard against such violations of human rights through its laws. Its very identity depends upon the confidence that violations of human rights, such as torture, are prohibited.42

38

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, United Nations General Assembly Resolution 2200A [XX1] (16 December 1966), accessible at http://www.cirp.org/library/ethics/UN-covenant (September 15, 2006); (italics added).

39

David Gushee, “Five Reasons Torture is Always Wrong,” Christianity Today, (February 2006), accessed at www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2006/002/23.32.html, (September 3, 2006).

40

David Gushee and Cliff Kirkpatrick, “Rights of Detainees Must Not Be Violated,” Commercial Appeal, (September 27, 2006).

41 42

Gushee and Kirkpatrick.

Michael Ignatieff, “Evil Under Interrogation,” Financial Times (London, May 15, 2004), accessed at http://www.ksg.harvard.edu/news/opeds/2004/ignatieff_torture_ft_051504.htm.

6.9

Between 9/11 and January 2006, tens of thousands had been detained in U.S. detention centers.43 The vast majority of these detainees were released without charge. It is important to remember that detention policies pertain to persons, most of whom will end up being charged with no crime and being viewed as no threat to our nation.

6.10

The boundaries of what is legally and morally permissible in war have been crossed in the current “war on terror.” The evidence of acts of torture or cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment against U.S. detainees, especially in Iraq’s Abu Ghraib prison, in Afghanistan’s Bagram Air Base, in CIA black sites, and at the hands of other nations, has been documented by numerous researchers, including those serving the U.S. government itself. Revelations of these outrages against human dignity led to intense pressure on the federal government to return to its earlier rejection of torture and to clarify its detention and interrogation policies.

6.11

Commendably, the U.S. Army Field Manual, last revised in 1992, has recently undergone more changes in light of recent events. Specific cruel, inhuman, and degrading practices that had taken place at least sporadically from 2002-2006 are now overtly banned. In addition to the general language of the 1992 edition, which prohibited “acts of violence or intimidation, including physical or mental torture, threats [or] insults, … as a means of or aid to interrogation,”44 there is now also more specific wording prohibiting military personnel from engaging in the behavior that put Abu Ghraib in the headlines. Beating prisoners, sexually humiliating them, threatening them with dogs, depriving them of food and water, performing mock executions, shocking them with electricity, burning them, causing other types of pain, and “waterboarding,” are all explicitly banned.45 The Pentagon is to be commended for this strong and positive revision of the Army Field Manual. It should become the policy of every agency of the United States government.46

6.12

Tragically, however, despite the military’s commendable efforts to remove itself from any involvement with torture, the current administration has decided to retain morally questionable interrogation techniques among the options available to our intelligence agencies. For some time it did so without any form of public disclosure or oversight. In

43

Katherine Shrader, “U.S. Has Detained 83,000 in War on Terror,” Associated Press, November 16, 2005, accessed online at www.sunherald.com, 11/25/05.

44

Gushee, “Five Reasons.”

45

“Human Intelligence Collector Operations.” U.S. Army Field Manual 2-22.3. September 6, 2006.

46

The U.S. has a moral obligation to train our military personnel in the best way to meet combat contingencies. That necessitates tough training in survival, escape, evasion, and rescue techniques. Also, history demonstrates that our enemies often do not observe standards of international law or the Geneva Convention. Therefore, part of military training involves sleep deprivation, exhaustive marches, food deprivation, and even some pain or discomfort. While this training is closely monitored to guard against abuses, it also must be sufficiently rigorous to arm the individual with physical, psychological, and mental coping skills to endure the unimaginable if taken as a prisoner of war. The signatories understand that this is part of military training and do not intend to condemn it.

2006 the administration moved its policies more fully into the light of day, pressing for legislation to authorize what it wanted to do.

6.13

The most recent legislation regarding these issues was signed into law in October 2006.47 From a human rights perspective, the Military Commissions Act includes numerous problematic provisions, such as one in which CIA officials are not required to submit to congressional oversight, and are not held to the same standards as the U.S. military. CIA “black sites” may continue to exist, with interrogation rules established by the president but not specified publicly and now removed from the ability of either Congress or judicial authority to review. 48 This could prove to be a recipe for cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment of detainees, without the Constitution’s checks and balances so crucial for American justice.

6.14

Various procedural issues in the Military Commissions Act are also troubling. The new law does not allow terrorism suspects to challenge their detention or treatment through traditional habeas corpus petitions.49 It permits prosecutors, under certain conditions, to use evidence collected through hearsay or through coercion to seek criminal convictions.50 The legislation also rejects any right to a speedy trial,51 and it empowers U.S. officials to detain indefinitely anyone it determines to have “purposefully and materially” supported anti-U.S. hostilities.52 These provisions are deeply lamentable, in part because of their substance, and in part because they create the conditions in which further prisoner abuse is made more likely. They violate basic principles of due process that have been developed in Western judicial systems, including our own, for centuries.

Anti-U.S. “hostilities" is a vague term that a future administration can use against anyone perceived as its enemy.53 We see this as fraught with danger to basic human rights.

7. Conclusion: Human Rights in an Age of Terror “And the Lord said, ‘What have you done? The voice of your brother’s blood is crying to me from the ground.”

Genesis 4:10 47

Military Commissions Act of 2006, 120 Statutes at Large 2600, Public Law 109-366 (October 17, 2006). Many of the act's sections are codified at title 10 United States Code section 948a and following.

48

President George W. Bush, in a speech made at the signing of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, Washington, D.C., October 17, 2006.

49

Section 7 of the Military Commissions Act, title 28 United States Code section 2241.

50

Section 3 of the Military Commissions Act, title 10 of the United States Code section 948r and section 949a.

51

Section 3 of the Military Commissions Act, title 10 United States Code 948b.

52

Section 3 of the Military Commissions Act, title 10 of the United States Code section 948a

53

Section 3 of the Military Commissions Act, title 10 of the United States Code section 948a.

7.1

The terrorist attacks of 9/11 and the attacks that followed blatantly violated human rights in the most outrageous manner imaginable. We declare without hesitation that the terrorist attacks in New York, Washington, London, Madrid, Bali, Casablanca, Amman, and other locations around the globe were heinous assaults on human life. We condemn these worldwide terrorist activities and the radical ideologues that foment them.

7.2

It is certainly the responsibility of a nation’s government to protect its people from such callous and cruel disregard of human life.54 Our military and intelligence forces have worked diligently to prevent further attacks. But such efforts must not include measures that violate our own core values.

7.3

Our current circumstances and national security concerns do not present us with distinctively new temptations regarding the violation of human rights in relation to interrogation policies, torture, and the legal rights of detainees. Our nation’s founders anticipated security threats in the 18th century; indeed, one could argue that they faced a far more threatening security environment than any that we have experienced since their age. Deterring evil ends without resorting to evil means are tasks in tension, but any democracy must face dealing with this tension.

7.4

A significant challenge presented to us as we focus on deterring terrorism is not that terrorism is unprecedented, but that as it spreads and intensifies, terrorism is deeply frightening to people and unsettling to our way of life. The principle that we must “discharge duties to those who have violated their duties to us” seems even more difficult to bear.55 It also makes it all the more necessary to be vigilant about guarding those moral boundaries.

7.5

Torture is but one of many violations of human rights. Sadly there are more. Even forty years ago, Vatican II was able to list the following such violations: The varieties of crime are numerous: all offenses against life itself, such as murder, genocide, abortion, euthanasia and willful suicide; all violations of the integrity of the human person, such as mutilation, physical and mental torture, undue psychological pressures, all offenses against human dignity, such as subhuman living conditions, arbitrary imprisonment, deportation, slavery, prostitution, the selling of women and children, degrading working conditions where men are treated as mere tools for profit rather than free and responsible persons: all these and the like are criminal: they poison civilization; and they debase the

54

The majority of the signatories of this document stand in the just-war tradition. Those who are pacifists believe government should carry out its important responsibilities using non-lethal methods.

55

Ignatieff.

perpetrators more than the victims and militate against the honor of the creator.56 7.6

Slavery, human and sexual trafficking, genocide, prison rape, abortion, euthanasia, unethical human experimentation—these are some of the other human rights violations listed by the National Association of Evangelicals in its “For the Health of the Nation” statement of 2004.57 As evangelicals, we are deeply concerned about all violations of human rights. We want to lead the way in honoring and defending human rights wherever they are threatened.

7.7

We gratefully acknowledge our brothers and sisters in other Christian traditions for their thoughtful and Spirit-led work in the area of human rights. In recent times, evangelicals have joined with others to articulate an increasingly vigorous human rights ethic. The Board of the National Association of Evangelicals, representing over 30 million evangelical Christians, in 2004 unanimously approved a statement of social responsibility, which declared that “because God created human beings in his image, we are endowed with rights and responsibilities. … Governments should be constitutionally obligated to protect basic human rights.” Among those rights articulated in this statement is the right to live “without fear of torture.”58 Little did the NAE know how relevant that particular provision would soon become.

7.8

As evangelicals, we are first obligated to be faithful to Christ and his teaching. We are to be Kingdom people, disciples who think biblically about all things. In this particular situation, discipleship requires a clear word from us to our nation and its leaders. We must continue to discuss the moral problems associated with our treatment of detainees both in recent years and still today. Indeed, all citizens in a democracy must step up to the challenge we now face. The enormous burden of defending the human rights of United States citizens while also respecting those of the (suspected and actual) enemy is not one to be carried by our president alone.59 As fellow Christians, fellow citizens, and fellow human beings, we let our leaders down by remaining silent.

7.9

When torture is employed by a state, that act communicates to the world and to one’s own people that human lives are not sacred, that they are not reflections of the Creator, that they are expendable, exploitable, and disposable, and that their intrinsic value can be overridden by utilitarian arguments that trump that value.60 These are claims that no one who confesses Christ as Lord can accept.

56

Vatican II, 928.

57

“For the Health of the Nation,”363, 370.

58

“For the Health of the Nation,” 373.

59

Haugen.

60

Ignatieff.

7.10

The most widely publicized acts of torture by the U.S. came on the heels of the 9/11 attack. As our nation mobilized, the eyes of the Muslim world were on the U.S. and how a Western civilization – in their eyes a Christian civilization – would respond to such barbarism. In this setting, that our actions were not bound by principles of human rights that we in the West profess was rightly seen by Muslims as hypocrisy and thus all the more damaging.

7.11

Human rights must be protected for all humankind. A commitment to life’s sacredness and to human rights is a seamless garment. It cannot be torn anywhere without compromising its integrity everywhere.

7.12

Therefore: (a) We renounce the use of torture and cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment by any branch of our government (or any other government)—even in the current circumstance of a war between the United States and various radical terrorist groups. (b) We call for the extension of basic human rights and procedural protections to all persons held in United States custody now or in the future, wherever and by whomever they are held. (c) We call for every agency of the United States government to join with the United States military and to state publicly its commitment to the terms of the Geneva Conventions related to the treatment of prisoners, especially Common Article 3. (d) We call for the legislative or judicial reversal of those executive and legislative provisions that violate the moral and legal standards articulated in this declaration.

7.13

.

We make these renunciations and calls for action as Christians and as U.S. citizens.

Undoubtedly there are occasions where the demands of Christian discipleship and American citizenship conflict. This is not one of them. Returning to the absolute commitment to human rights outlined here is right in terms of Christian convictions and right in terms of the interests of our nation. We commend these moral commitments to our fellow believers, and our fellow citizens, for such a time as this.

Chicago Declaration of Evangelical Social Concern As evangelical Christians committed to the Lord Jesus Christ and the full authority of the Word of God, we affirm that God lays total claim upon the lives of his people. We cannot, therefore, separate our lives from the situation in which God has placed us in the United States and the world.

We confess that we have not acknowledged the complete claim of God on our lives.

We acknowledge that God requires love. But we have not demonstrated the love of God to those suffering social abuses.

We acknowledge that God requires justice. But we have not proclaimed or demonstrated his justice to an unjust American society. Although the Lord calls us to defend the social and economic rights of the poor and oppressed, we have mostly remained silent. We deplore the historic involvement of the church in America with racism and the conspicuous responsibility of the evangelical community for perpetuating the personal attitudes and institutional structures that have divided the body of Christ along color lines. Further, we have failed to condemn the exploitation of racism at home and abroad by our economic system.

We affirm that God abounds in mercy and that he forgives all who repent and turn from their sins. So we call our fellow evangelical Christians to demonstrate repentance in a Christian discipleship that confronts the social and political injustice of our nation.

We must attack the materialism of our culture and the maldistribution of the nation's wealth and services. We recognize that as a nation we play a crucial role in the imbalance and injustice of international trade and development.

Before God and a billion hungry neighbors, we must rethink our values regarding our present standard of living and promote a more just acquisition and distribution of the world's resources.

We acknowledge our Christian responsibilities of citizenship. Therefore, we must challenge the misplaced trust of the nation in economic and military might - a proud trust that promotes a national pathology of war and violence which victimizes our neighbors at home and abroad. We must resist the temptation to make the nation and its institutions objects of near-religious loyalty.

We acknowledge that we have encouraged men to prideful domination and women to irresponsible passivity. So we call both men and women to mutual submission and active discipleship.

We proclaim no new gospel, but the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ who, through the power of the Holy Spirit, frees people from sin so that they might praise God through works of righteousness.

By this declaration, we endorse no political ideology or party, but call our nation's leaders and people to that righteousness which exalts a nation.

We make this declaration in the biblical hope that Christ is coming to consummate the Kingdom and we accept his claim on our total discipleship until he comes.

Original Signers: John F. Alexander Joseph Bayly Ruth L. Bentley William Bentley Dale Brown James C. Cross Donald Dayton Roger Dewey James Dunn Daniel Ebersole Samuel Escobar Warren C. Falcon Frank Gaebelein Sharon Gallagher Theodore E. Gannon Art Gish Vernon Grounds Nancy Hardesty Carl F. H. Henry Paul Henry Clarence Hilliard Walden Howard Rufus Jones Robert Tad Lehe William Leslie C. T. McIntire Wes Michaelson

November 25, 1973 Chicago, Illinois

David O. Moberg Stephen Mott Richard Mouw David Nelson F. Burton Nelson William Pannell John Perkins William Petersen Richard Pierard Wyn Wright Potter Ron Potter Bernard Ramm Paul Rees Boyd Reese Joe Roos James Robert Ross Eunice Schatz Ronald J. Sider Donna Simons Lewis Smedes Foy Valentine Marlin Van Elderen Jim Wallis Robert Webber Merold Westphal John Howard Yoder

Christian Churches Together’s Statement on Poverty As Christian leaders in the wealthiest society on eart h, we are called by God to urge our churches and nation to strengthen and expand efforts to address the scandal of widespread poverty in the Unit ed States and around the world. The Gospel and our ethic al principles place our service of the poor and vulnerable and our work for justice at the center of Christian life and witness.

Our common faith compels us. Christ our Lord teaches us that when we serve and stand with “the least of these,� we serve and stand with Him. Our Bible teaches us in hundreds of places that the God we worship has a special concern for the poor. God judges individuals and societies by how they respond to the needs of the poor. As leaders in Christian Churches Together, we believe that a renewed commitment to overcome poverty is central to the mission of the church and essential to our unity in Christ. Therefore in order to obey our God, respect the dignity of every person, and promot e the common good of society, we must act. Our focus here is domestic poverty, but we reaffirm our commitment to overcome poverty all around the world.

Widespread and persistent poverty challenges us to action. The painful truth is that about thirty -seven million people in our country live below the poverty line. Tragically, 18 perc ent of all our children struggle in poverty. The sad reality is that millions in our nation work hard and still cannot escape poverty. We lament this ongoing poverty.

Our faith in Christ who is the truth compels us to confront the ignorance of and indifference to the scandal of wides pread, persistent poverty in this rich nation. We must call this situation by its real names: moral failure, unaccept able injustice. Our faith in Christ drives us to call our churches and our society to a more urgent, united response.

We are grateful for the vast array of ways our churches are already helping millions of struggling people. We want to build on these efforts, learn from each other, and collaborat e more closely. But we can, we must, do more.

We also recognize and encourage leaders in community, economic and public life who seek j ustice for poor people in our land. But we can, we must, do more. Our goal must be the elimination of poverty in this land.

As we as Christians renew and strengthen our efforts to overcome domestic poverty, we will seek to work with people of other faiths and all persons of good will in this urgent task.

Unfortunately, partisan and ideological divisions too often promote one-sided solutions and prevent genuine progress. We believe substantial success in reducing domestic poverty requires an overall frame work that insists that overcoming poverty requires both more personal res ponsibility and broader societal responsibility, both better

choices by individuals and better policies and investments by government, both renewing wholesome families and strengthening economic incentives. We believe that genuine success in reducing American poverty will require greater commitment and concrete action by all four of the following: churches, neighborhoods, communities, and faith-based and other organizations; government that implements better public policy at local, state, and federal levels; individuals and families; the market and privat e sector (employers, unions and other economic actors ).

We are leaders of the Christian community, not an interest group. We have no partisan political agenda. We are conservatives and liberals, Independents, Republicans and Democrats. Together we believe that our faith demands and the people of this land yearn for concrete proposals that transcend divisive political divisions.

We give thanks to God for bringing together at one Christian table in Christian Churches Together for the first time in our history representatives of almost all the families in Christianity in the United States: E vangelicals/Pentec ostals, Catholics, Racial/Ethnic, Orthodox and Historic Prot estants. As a united voice of Christianity in this country, we pledge to strengthen our efforts to end the scandal of widespread poverty in the richest nation in history.

Four Objective s.

CCT will promote its commitment to overcoming domestic poverty by inviting all Christians and all people, especially our leaders in public life, to embrace and implement the following objectives: a.

to strengthen families and communities; because they are essential bulwarks against poverty;

b.

to reduce child poverty; we seek to cut child poverty by 50 percent in the next ten years;

c.

to make work work; by combating racism and guaranteeing that full time work offers a realistic escape from poverty and access to good healt h care;

d.

to strengthen the educational system in our country with particular attention to the public schools; because access to quality education offers perhaps the best way out of poverty.

For the Health of the Nation: An Evangelical Call to Civic Responsibility PREAMBLE Evangelical Christians in America face a historic opportunity. We make up fully one quarter of all voters in the most powerful nation in history. Never before has God given American evangelicals such an awesome opportunity to shape public policy in ways that could contribute to the well-being of the entire world. Disengagement is not an option.

We must seek God’s face for biblical faithfulness and abundant wisdom to rise to this unique challenge.

The special circumstances of this historic moment underline both the opportunity and the challenge. ! ! ! !

!

Although we have the privilege to help shape the actions of the world’s lone superpower, only half of all evangelical Christians bother to vote.

The presence and role of religion in public life is attacked more fiercely now than ever, making the bias of aggressive secularism the last acceptable prejudice in America.

Since the atrocities of September 11, 2001, the spiritual and religious dimensions of global conflict have been sharpened.

Secular media outlets have long acknowledged evangelical involvement in prolife and family issues, but are taking belated notice of evangelicals’ global involvement in activities such as disaster relief, refugee resettlement, and the fights against AIDS/HIV, human rights abuses, slavery, sexual trafficking, and prison rape.

Some key American political leaders now conceive of their roles in moral terms.

And they see themselves as stewards of the blessings of representative democracy, religious freedom, and human rights in a world where many nations are endangered by the forces of authoritarianism or radical secularism.

Evangelicals may not always agree about policy, but we realize that we have many callings and commitments in common: commitments to the protection and well-being of families and children, of the poor, the sick, the disabled, and the unborn, of the persecuted and oppressed, and of the rest of the created order. While these issues do not exhaust the concerns of good government, they provide the platform for evangelicals to engage in common action.

Despite our common commitments and this moment of opportunity, American evangelicals continue to be ambivalent about civic engagement.

In 1947, Carl F. H. Henry pricked our uneasy consciences and spurred us toward responsible social and political engagement. In the years since, the National Association of Evangelicals has routinely engaged our political leaders through its Office of Governmental Affairs and worked to educate member churches on current issues. In recent decades, a variety of evangelical political voices have emerged. Yet evangelicals have failed to engage with the breadth, depth, and consistency to which we are called.

Scholars and leaders have inspired us by drawing attention to historical exemplars of evangelical public responsibility from Wilberforce and the Booths in England to Edwards, Backus, Garnet, Finney, and Palmer in America. Our spiritual ancestors did not always agree on the specifics of governance and the best roads to social reform. Yet their passion and sacrifice inspire us to creative engagement, even when we cannot fully agree on policy prescriptions.

Against this historical background and in view of these common commitments, we offer the following principled framework for evangelical public engagement.

THE BASIS FOR CHRISTIAN CIVIC ENGAGEMENT We engage in public life because God created our first parents in his image and gave them dominion over the earth (Gen. 1:27-28). The responsibilities that emerge from that mandate are many, and in a modern society those responsibilities rightly flow to many different institutions, including governments, families, churches, schools, businesses, and labor unions. Just governance is part of our calling in creation.

We also engage in public life because Jesus is Lord over every area of life. Through him all things were created (Col. 1:16-17), and by him all things will be brought to fullness (Rom. 8:19-21). To restrict our stewardship to the private sphere would be to deny an important part of his dominion and to functionally abandon it to the Evil One. To restrict our political concerns to matters that touch only on the private and the domestic spheres is to deny the all-encompassing Lordship of Jesus (Rev. 19:16).

Following in the tradition of the Hebrew prophets, Jesus announced the arrival of God’s kingdom (God’s “reign” or “rule”) (Matt. 4:17; Mark 1:15). This kingdom would be marked by justice, peace, forgiveness, restoration, and healing for all. Jesus’ followers have come to understand the time between his first and second comings as a period of “already, but not yet,” in which we experience many of the blessings of God’s reign and see initial signs of restoration, while we continue to suffer many of the results of the Fall.

We know that we must wait for God to bring about the fullness of the kingdom at Christ’s return. But in this interim, the Lord calls the church to speak prophetically to society and work for the renewal and reform of its structures. The Lord also calls the church to practice the righteous deeds of the kingdom and point to the kingdom by the 2

wholeness and integrity of the church’s common life. This example will require us to demonstrate God’s love for all, by crossing racial, ethnic, economic, and national boundaries. It will also often involve following Jesus’ example by suffering and living sacrificially for others.

As Christian citizens, we believe it is our calling to help government live up to its divine mandate to render justice (Rom. 13:1-7; 1 Pet. 2:13-17). From the teachings of the Bible and our experience of salvation, we Christians bring a unique vision to our participation in the political order and a conviction that changed people and transformed communities are possible. In the power of the Holy Spirit, we are compelled outward in service to God and neighbor.

Jesus calls us as his followers to love our neighbors as ourselves. Our goal in civic engagement is to bless our neighbors by making good laws. Because we have been called to do justice to our neighbors, we foster a free press, participate in open debate, vote, and hold public office. When Christians do justice, it speaks loudly about God. And it can show those who are not believers how the Christian vision can contribute to the common good and help alleviate the ills of society.

THE METHOD OF CHRISTIAN CIVIC ENGAGEMENT Every political judgment requires both a normative vision and factual analysis. The more carefully and precisely we Christians think about the complex details of both, the more clearly we will be able to explain our views to others and understand—and perhaps overcome—disagreements with others.

Every normative vision has some understanding of persons, creation, history, justice, life, family, and peace. As Christians committed to the full authority of Scripture, our normative vision must flow from the Bible and from the moral order that God has embedded in his creation.

Evangelical Christians seek in every area of life to submit to the authority of Scripture (2 Tim. 3:16-17; Rom. 15:4; 1 Cor. 10:11). Nevertheless, many contemporary political decisions—whether about environmental science, HIV/AIDS, or international trade— deal with complex sociological or technological issues not discussed explicitly in the Bible. As Christians engaged in public policy, we must do detailed social, economic, historical, jurisprudential, and political analysis if we are to understand our society and wisely apply our normative vision to political questions. Only if we deepen our Christian vision and also study our contemporary world can we engage in politics faithfully and wisely.

From the Bible, experience, and social analysis, we learn that social problems arise and can be substantially corrected by both personal decisions and structural changes. On the one hand, personal sinful choices contribute significantly to destructive social problems (Prov. 6:9-11), and personal conversion through faith in Christ can transform broken 3

persons into wholesome, productive citizens. On the other hand, unjust systems also help create social problems (Amos 5:10-15; Isa. 10:1-2) and wise structural change (for example legislation to strengthen marriage or increase economic opportunity for all) can improve society. Thus Christian civic engagement must seek to transform both individuals and institutions. While individuals transformed by the gospel change surrounding society, social institutions also shape individuals. While good laws encourage good behavior, bad laws and systems foster destructive action. Lasting social change requires both personal conversion and institutional renewal and reform.

The Bible makes it clear that God cares a great deal about the well-being of marriage, the family, the sanctity of human life, justice for the poor, care for creation, peace, freedom, and racial justice. While individual persons and organizations are at times called by God to concentrate on one or two issues, faithful evangelical civic engagement must champion a biblically balanced agenda.

Humility and civility As sinners who are thankful for God’s grace, we know that we do not always live up to our civic responsibility. Christians must approach political engagement with humility and with earnest prayer for divine guidance and wisdom. Because power structures are often entrenched, perfect solutions are unobtainable. Because cultural changes produce problems that are often not amenable to legislative solutions, we must not expect political activity to achieve more than it can. Because social systems are complex and our knowledge is incomplete, we cannot predict all the effects of laws, policies, and regulations. As a result, we must match our high ideals with careful social analysis and critical reflection on our experience in order to avoid supporting policies that produce unintended and unfortunate consequences.

We will differ with other Christians and with non-Christians over the best policies. Thus we must practice humility and cooperation to achieve modest and attainable goals for the good of society. We must take care to employ the language of civility and to avoid denigrating those with whom we disagree. Because political work requires persuasion and cooperation with those who do not share our Christian commitment, we must offer a reasoned and easy-to-grasp defense of our goals.

When we as Christians engage in political activity, we must maintain our integrity and keep our biblical values intact. While we may frequently settle for “half-a-loaf,� we must never compromise principle by engaging in unethical behavior or endorsing or fostering sin. As we rightly engage in supporting legislation, candidates and political parties, we must be clear that biblical faith is vastly larger and richer than every limited, inevitably imperfect political agenda and that commitment to the Lordship of Christ and his one body far transcends all political commitments.

THE STRUCTURES OF PUBLIC LIFE

4

In the beginning, God called human beings to govern and to care for the creation.

Faithfulness to this call has taken different forms as human beings have lived in family groups, in tribes and clans, in kingdoms and empires, and now in modern nation-states in an increasingly interconnected global community. Today we live in a complex society in which few people are directly involved in governing and in which complicated problems do not readily yield straightforward solutions.

God has ordered human society with various institutions and set in place forms of government to maintain public order, to restrain human evil, and to promote the common good. God has called all people to share responsibility for creating a healthy society.

Human beings work out their different ways of obeying God’s call as spouses, parents, workers, and participants in the wide variety of human networks. Some, however, are called to particular roles of governance. We must support and pray for all those who shoulder the burdens of government (1 Tim. 2:1-2).

Representative democracy We thank God for the blessings of representative democracy, which allow all citizens to participate in government by electing their representatives, helping to set the priorities for government, and by sharing publicly the insights derived from their experience. We are grateful that we live in a society in which citizens can hold government responsible for fulfilling its responsibilities to God and abiding by the norms of justice.

We support the democratic process in part because people continue to be sufficiently blessed by God’s common grace that they can seek not only their own betterment, but also the welfare of others. We also support democracy because we know that since the Fall, people often abuse power for selfish purposes. As Lord Acton noted, power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Thus we thank God for a constitutional system that decentralizes power through the separation of powers, fair elections, limited terms of office, and division among national, state, and local authorities.

As Christians we confess that our primary allegiance is to Christ, his kingdom, and Christ’s worldwide body of believers, not to any nation. God has blessed America with bounty and with strength, but unless these blessings are used for the good of all, they will turn to our destruction. As Christian citizens of the United States, we must keep our eyes open to the potentially self-destructive tendencies of our society and our government. We must also balance our natural affection for our country with a love for people of all nations and an active desire to see them prosper. We invite Christians outside the United States to aid us in broadening our perspectives on American life and action.

Just government and fundamental liberty God is the source of all true law and genuine liberty. He both legitimates and limits the state’s authority. Thus, while we owe Caesar his due (Matt. 22:15-22; Mark 12:13-17; Luke 20:20-26), we regard only Jesus as Lord. As King of Kings, Jesus’ authority extends over Caesar. As followers of Jesus, we obey government authorities when they act in accord with God’s justice and his laws (Titus 3:1). But we also resist government 5

when it exercises its power in an unjust manner (Acts 5:27-32) or tries to dominate other institutions in society. A good government preserves the God-ordained responsibilities of society’s other institutions, such as churches, other faith-centered organizations, schools, families, labor unions, and businesses.

PRINCIPLES OF CHRISTIAN POLITICAL ENGAGEMENT We work to protect religious freedom and liberty of conscience God has ordained the two co-existing institutions of church and state as distinct and independent of each other with each having its own areas of responsibility (Rom. 13:1-7; Mark 12:13-17; Eph. 4:15-16, 5:23-32). We affirm the principles of religious freedom and liberty of conscience, which are both historically and logically at the foundation of the American experiment. They are properly called the First Freedom and are now vested in the First Amendment. The First Amendment’s guarantees of freedom of speech, association, and religion provide the political space in which we can carry out our differing responsibilities. Because human beings are responsible to God, these guarantees are crucial to the exercise of their God-given freedom. As God allows the wheat and tares to grow together until the harvest, and as God sends the rain on the just and on the unjust, so those who obey and those who disobey God coexist in society and share in its blessings (Matt. 5:45, 13:24-30). This “gospel pluralism” is foundational to the religious liberty of all.

Participating in the public square does not require people to put aside their beliefs or suspend the practice of their religion. All persons should have equal access to public forums, regardless of the religious content or viewpoint of their speech. Likewise, judicial standards should protect and respect not only religiously compelled practices, but also religiously motivated behavior.

The First Amendment’s Establishment Clause is directed only at government and restrains its power. Thus, for example, the clause was never intended to shield individuals from exposure to the religious views of nongovernmental speakers. Exemptions from regulations or tax burdens do not violate the Establishment Clause, for government does not establish religion by leaving it alone. When government assists nongovernmental organizations as part of an evenhanded educational, social service, or health care program, religious organizations receiving such aid do not become “state actors” with constitutional duties. Courts should respect church autonomy in matters relating to doctrine, polity, the application of its governing documents, church discipline, clergy and staff employment practices, and other matters within the province of the church (Acts 18:12-17).

Religion is not just an individual matter, but also refers to rich communal traditions of ultimate belief and practice. We resist the definition of religion becoming either radically individualized or flattened out to mean anything that passes for a serious conviction.

Thus, while the First Amendment protects religiously informed conscience, it does not protect all matters of sincere concern.

6

We work to nurture family life and protect children From Genesis onward, the Bible tells us that the family is central to God’s vision for human society. God has revealed himself to us in the language of family, adopting us as his children (Rom. 8:23, Gal. 4:5) and teaching us by the Holy Spirit to call him Abba Father (Rom. 8:15, Gal. 4:6). Marriage, which is a lifetime relationship between one man and one woman, is the predominant biblical icon of God’s relationship with his people (Isa. 54:5; Jer. 3:20, 31:32; Ezek. 16:32; Eph. 5:23, 31-32). In turn, family life reveals something to us about God, as human families mirror, however faintly, the inner life of the Trinity.

The mutuality and service of family life contrast strongly with the hypermodern emphasis on individual freedom and rights. Marriage, sexuality, and family life are fundamental to society. Whether we are married or single, it is in the family that we learn mutual responsibility, we learn to live in an ordered society with complementary and distinct roles, we learn to submit and to obey, we learn to love and to trust, we learn both justice and mercy, and we learn to deny ourselves for the well-being of others. Thus the family is at the heart of the organic functioning of society.

Government does not have the primary responsibility for guaranteeing wholesome family life. That is the job of families themselves and of other institutions, especially churches.

But governments should understand that people are more than autonomous individuals; they live in families and many are married. While providing individuals with ways to remedy or escape abusive relationships, governments should promote laws and policies that strengthen the well-being of families.

Many social evils—such as alcohol, drug, gambling, or credit-card abuse, pornography, sexual libertinism, spousal or child sexual abuse, easy divorce, abortion on demand— represent the abandonment of responsibility or the violation of trust by family members, and they seriously impair the ability of family members to function in society. These evils must be viewed not only as matters of individual sin and dysfunction, but also as violations of family integrity. Because the family is so important to society, violations of its integrity threaten public order. Similarly, employment, labor, housing, health care, and educational policies concern not only individuals but seriously affect families. In order to strengthen the family, we must promote biblical moral principles, responsible personal choices, and good public policies on marriage and divorce law, shelter, food, health care, education, and a family wage (Jas. 5:1-6).

Good family life is so important to healthy human functioning that we oppose government efforts to trespass on its territory: whether by encroaching on parental responsibilities to educate their children, by treating other kinds of households as the family’s social and legal equivalent, or by creating economic disincentives to marriage.

We commit ourselves to work for laws that protect and foster family life, and against government attempts to interfere with the integrity of the family. We also oppose 7

innovations such as same-sex “marriage.” We will work for measures that strengthen the economic viability of marriages and families, especially among the poor. We likewise commit ourselves to work within the church and society to strengthen marriages, to reduce the rate of divorce, and to prepare young adults for healthy family life.

We work to protect the sanctity of human life and to safeguard its nature Because God created human beings in his image, all people share in the divine dignity.

And because the Bible reveals God’s calling and care of persons before they are born, the preborn share in this dignity (Ps. 139:13).

We believe that abortion, euthanasia, and unethical human experimentation violate the God-given dignity of human beings. As these practices gain social approval and become legitimized in law, they undermine the legal and cultural protections that our society has provided for vulnerable persons. Human dignity is indivisible. A threat to the aged, to the very young, to the unborn, to those with disabilities, or to those with genetic diseases is a threat to all.

The book of Genesis portrays human attempts to transcend creaturely humility before God as rebellion against God. Christians must witness in the political sphere to the limits of our creatureliness and warn against the dangers of dissatisfaction with human limits.

As many others in the West, we have had such faith in science and its doctrine of progress that we are unprepared for the choices biotechnology now brings us. We urge evangelicals with specialized scientific knowledge to help Christians and policymakers to think through these issues. As technologies related to cloning and creating inheritable genetic modifications are being refined, society is less able to create a consensus on what is good and what limits we should place on human modification. The uniqueness of human nature is at stake.

Where the negative implications of biotechnology are unknown, government ought to err on the side of caution. Christians must welcome and support medical research that uses stem cells from adult donors and other ethical avenues of research. But we must work toward complete bans on human cloning and embryonic stem-cell research, as well as for laws against discrimination based on genetic information.

We seek justice and compassion for the poor and vulnerable Jesus summed up God’s law by commanding us to love God with all that we are and to love our neighbors as ourselves (Matt. 22:35-40). By deed and parable, he taught us that anyone in need is our neighbor (Luke 10:29-37). Because all people are created in the image of God, we owe each other help in time of need.

God identifies with the poor (Ps. 146:5-9), and says that those who “are kind to the poor lend to the Lord” (Prov. 19:17), while those who oppress the poor “show contempt for their Maker” (Prov. 14:31). Jesus said that those who do not care for the needy and the imprisoned will depart eternally from the living God (Matt. 25:31-46). The vulnerable 8

may include not only the poor, but women, children, the aged, persons with disabilities, immigrants, refugees, minorities, the persecuted, and prisoners. God measures societies by how they treat the people at the bottom.

God’s prophets call his people to create just and righteous societies (Isa. 10:1-4, 58:3-12; Jer. 5:26-29, 22:13-19; Amos 2:6-7; Amos 4:1-3, 5:10-15). The prophetic teaching insists on both a fair legal system (which does not favor either the rich or the poor) and a fair economic system (which does not tolerate perpetual poverty). Though the Bible does not call for economic equality, it condemns gross disparities in opportunity and outcome that cause suffering and perpetuate poverty, and it calls us to work toward equality of opportunity. God wants every person and family to have access to productive resources so that if they act responsibly they can care for their economic needs and be dignified members of their community. Christians reach out to help others in various ways: through personal charity, effective faith-based ministries, and other nongovernmental associations, and by advocating for effective government programs and structural changes.

Economic justice includes both the mitigation of suffering and also the restoration of wholeness. Wholeness includes full participation in the life of the community. Health care, nutrition, and education are important ingredients in helping people transcend the stigma and agony of poverty and re-enter community. Since healthy family systems are important for nurturing healthy individuals and overcoming poverty, public policy should encourage marriage and sexual abstinence outside marriage, while discouraging early onset of sexual activity, out-of-wedlock births, and easy divorce. Government should also hold fathers and mothers responsible for the maintenance of their families, enforcing where necessary the collection of child-support payments.

Restoring people to wholeness means that governmental social welfare must aim to provide opportunity and restore people to self-sufficiency. While basic standards of support must be put in place to provide for those who cannot care for their families and themselves, incentives and training in marketable skills must be part of any well-rounded program. We urge Christians who work in the political realm to shape wise laws pertaining to the creation of wealth, wages, education, taxation, immigration, health care, and social welfare that will protect those trapped in poverty and empower the poor to improve their circumstances.

We further believe that care for the vulnerable should extend beyond our national borders. American foreign policy and trade policies often have an impact on the poor. We should try to persuade our leaders to change patterns of trade that harm the poor and to make the reduction of global poverty a central concern of American foreign policy. We must support policies that encourage honesty in government, correct unfair socioeconomic structures, generously support effective programs that empower the poor, and foster economic development and prosperity. Christians should also encourage continued government support of international aid agencies, including those that are faith based.

9

Especially in the developing world, extreme poverty, lack of health care, the spread of HIV/AIDS, inadequate nutrition, unjust and unstable economies, slavery and sexual trafficking, the use of rape as a tool of terror and oppression, civil war, and government cronyism and graft create the conditions in which large populations become vulnerable.

We support Christian agencies and American foreign policy that effectively correct these political problems and promote just, democratic structures.

We work to protect human rights Because God created human beings in his image, we are endowed with rights and responsibilities. In order to carry out these responsibilities, human beings need the freedom to form associations, formulate and express beliefs, and act on conscientiously held commitments.

As recipients of God’s gift of embodied life, people need food, nurture, shelter, and care.

In order to fulfill their God-given tasks, all people have a right to private property. God’s design for human existence also implies a right to marry, enjoy family life, and raise and educate children. While it is not the primary role of government to provide everything that humans need for their well-being, governments are obligated to ensure that people are not unjustly deprived of them and to strengthen families, schools, businesses, hospitals, social-service organizations, and other institutions so they can contribute to human welfare. At the same time, government must fulfill its responsibilities to provide for the general welfare and promote the common good.

Governments should be constitutionally obligated to protect basic human rights.

Documents like the UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights are attempts to articulate the kind of treatment that every person deserves from the government under which they live. Insofar as a person has a human right, that person should be able to appeal to an executive, legislative, or judicial authority to enforce or adjudicate that right.

We believe that American foreign policy should reward those countries that respect human rights and should not reward (and prudently employ certain sanctions against) those countries that abuse or deny such rights. We urge the United States to increase its commitments to developing democracy and civil society in former colonial lands, Muslim nations, and countries emerging from Communism.

Because the Creator gave human beings liberty, we believe that religious liberty, including the right to change one’s religion, is a foundational right that must be respected by governments (Article 18, Universal Declaration of Human Rights). Freedom of expression and freedom of assembly are closely related to religious liberty, and people must be free to express their vision for a just social order without fear of torture or other reprisal.

We also oppose the expansion of “rights talk” to encompass so-called rights such as “same-sex marriage” or “the right to die.” Inappropriately expanded rights language has 10

begun to function as a trump card in American discourse that unfairly shuts down needed discussion.

America has a tragic history of mistreating Native Americans, the cruel practice of slavery, and the subsequent segregation and exploitation of the descendants of slaves.

While the United States has achieved legal and social equality in principle, the legacy of racism still makes many African Americans, Hispanics, and other ethnic minorities particularly vulnerable to a variety of social ills. Our churches have a special responsibility to model good race relations (Rom. 10:12). To correct the lingering effects of our racist history, Christians should support well-conceived efforts that foster dignity and responsibility.

We seek peace and work to restrain violence Jesus and the prophets looked forward to the time when God’s reign would bring about just and peaceful societies in which people would enjoy the fruits of their labor without interference from foreign oppressors or unjust rulers. But from the beginning, Christians have recognized that God did not call them to bring in God’s kingdom by force. While all Christians have agreed that governments should protect and restore just and peaceful social orders, we have long differed on when governments may use force and whether we may participate in government-authorized force to defend our homelands, rescue others from attack, or liberate other people from oppression.

The peaceful settling of disputes is a gift of common grace. We urge governments to pursue thoroughly nonviolent paths to peace before resorting to military force. We believe that if governments are going to use military force, they must use it in the service of peace and not merely in their national interest. Military force must be guided by the classical just-war principles, which are designed to restrain violence by establishing the right conditions for and right conduct in fighting a war. In an age of nuclear and biological terrorism, such principles are more important than ever.

We urge followers of Jesus to engage in practical peacemaking locally, nationally, and internationally. As followers of Jesus, we should, in our civic capacity, work to reduce conflict by promoting international understanding and engaging in non-violent conflict resolution.

We labor to protect God’s creation As we embrace our responsibility to care for God’s earth, we reaffirm the important truth that we worship only the Creator and not the creation. God gave the care of his earth and its species to our first parents. That responsibility has passed into our hands. We affirm that God-given dominion is a sacred responsibility to steward the earth and not a license to abuse the creation of which we are a part. We are not the owners of creation, but its stewards, summoned by God to “watch over and care for it” (Gen. 2:15). This implies the principle of sustainability: our uses of the Earth must be designed to conserve and renew the Earth rather than to deplete or destroy it.

11

The Bible teaches us that God is not only redeeming his people, but is also restoring the whole creation (Rom. 8:18-23). Just as we show our love for the Savior by reaching out to the lost, we believe that we show our love for the Creator by caring for his creation.

Because clean air, pure water, and adequate resources are crucial to public health and civic order, government has an obligation to protect its citizens from the effects of environmental degradation. This involves both the urgent need to relieve human suffering caused by bad environmental practice. Because natural systems are extremely complex, human actions can have unexpected side effects. We must therefore approach our stewardship of creation with humility and caution.

Human beings have responsibility for creation in a variety of ways. We urge Christians to shape their personal lives in creation-friendly ways: practicing effective recycling, conserving resources, and experiencing the joy of contact with nature. We urge government to encourage fuel efficiency, reduce pollution, encourage sustainable use of natural resources, and provide for the proper care of wildlife and their natural habitats.

OUR COMMITMENT We commit ourselves to support Christians who engage in political and social action in a manner consistent with biblical teachings. We call on Christian leaders in public office or with expertise in public policy and political life, to help us deepen our perspective on public policy and political life so that we might better fulfill our civic responsibility.

We call on all Christians to become informed and then to vote, as well as to regularly communicate biblical values to their government representatives. We urge all Christians to take their civic responsibility seriously even when they are not fulltime political activists so that they might more adequately call those in government to their task. We also encourage our children to consider vocations in public service.

We call churches and transdenominational agencies to cultivate an understanding of civic responsibility and public justice among their members. Seminaries and Christian colleges have a special responsibility to imbue future leaders with a sense of civic responsibility.

We call all Christians to a renewed political engagement that aims to protect the vulnerable and poor, to guard the sanctity of human life, to further racial reconciliation and justice, to renew the family, to care for creation, and to promote justice, freedom, and peace for all.

Above all, we commit ourselves to regular prayer for those who govern, that God may prosper their efforts to nurture life, justice, freedom, and peace.

12

ESA’s History At the first Calv in College confe rence on politics that Pa ul Henry orga nized in the spring of 1973, half a dozen folk inc luding David Moberg, Rufus Jones and Paul Henry decide d to call a wee kend workshop over Tha nksgiving, 1973. We invited a broad range of evange lical leaders to come a nd talk a bout the need for strengthening evange lical soc ial conce rn. About forty came –older evangelicals like Carl He nry, Frank Gaebele in; younge r evange lica ls like Jim Wa llis, John Pe rkins, Sharon Gallaghe r, Ric h Mouw and myself.

We wrote and signe d the now famous Chicago Decla ration of Evange lica l Socia l Concern, confessing our failure to confront injustice, rac ism a nd discrimination against women, and pledging to do better. Looking back, the Chicago Dec laration sounds pretty tame, but it was ne w and powe rful in 1973. Dic k Ostling of Time magazine said that he thought it was probably the first time in the 20th century that forty evange lical leaders spent a whole wee kend discussing socia l action. And the Chicago Sun Times said that some day church historians may write that “the most significant churc h-related event of 1973 took place” at this gathering.

Out of the 1973 Thanksgiving event came a ne w group, Eva ngelicals for Soc ial Action, with the Chicago Dec laration as our founding document. But our only major activity was an annual confere nce in 1974, 1975, and 1976.

One immediate response to the 1973 Chicago Decla ration came from mainline ecumenical Christians. They we re delighted that evangelicals were talking abo ut racism and economic injustice. In 1974 and 1975, we he ld at least two, two -day consultations with a Luthe ran group and a United Methodist group, and I was invite d to attend the Fifth Assembly of the World Council of Churches in Nairobi in 1975.

It is ha rd today to remembe r how little contact the re was between evange licals and mainline Protestants thirty years ago. A funny story reporte d in The Christian Century about the group Religious Lea ders for Mc Govern/Shriver in 1972 illustrates the situation. The leade r of that group tells how he spe nt three days in the early fall of 1972 trying to contact evangelicals for the Mc Govern campa ign. He says he would talk with one ecume nica l leader afte r a nother asking if they kne w any evangelical he could call. They would say: “ No, but I think so and so knows one.” Whe n he called that pe rson, he got the same response. The n on the third day, his secretary took a call from Ron Sider who cla imed to represent Evangelicals for Mc Govern. We ta lked and became part of Re ligious Leade rs for McGove rn/Shrive r. One of the things ESA has accomplished over the years is to help build bridges–far more solid ones I hope than the McGove rn campaign! – betwee n evange licals and mainline Protestants.

In the summer of 1978, we launched ESA as a national membe rship organization with three full-time staff and offices at The Other Side building in Ge rmantown in Philadelphia. A little publication called the ESA Update, loca l ESA chapte rs, a nd the Disciple Workshop teams doing two-day seminars on world hunger and economic justice were our major activities.

We made all the usual start-up mista kes plus some in the first three years. But in 1981, God sent along Bill Kallio who was living in Grand Ra pids to be our ne w executive director. Bill had grown up in a secula r, libera l Ne w Je rsey home that was deeply committed to the c ivil rights a nd anti-Vietnam Wa r movements. Whe n Bill came to C hrist through an evangelical youth movement in high school, he decided he must go to an evangelical college. But when as a freshman at Wheaton in the early 70's his fellow stude nts discovere d that he was opposed to the Vietnam War and in favor of the civil rights movement, fe llow students conc luded that he was not a Christian and sta rted knoc king on his dorm door trying to lead him to Jesus. So he transfe rre d to Gordon College.

Bill Kallio was ESA’s executive director from 1981-1987. Afte r a couple years in Grand Rapids, Bill led us to transfer ESA’s offices to Washington. Bill was influential in leading ESA to a clea rer consistently pro-life stance. ESA staff helped do the research for my book Completely Pro-Life that was published in 1987.

Afte r a trip of evange lical leaders to Nica ragua whic h I orga nized about 1983, ESA decided to develop a prayer lette r ca lle d Intercessors for Peace and F reedom: A Prayer Network for Peace, Justice and F reedom. ESA opposed the Reagan Administration’s funding of the contras waging gue rilla war aga inst the Sa ndinista governme nt. But we also opposed the ways the Sa ndinistas we re restricting freedom. So our newsletter carried regula r reports a bout both the massacres by the contras and the violations of freedom by the Sandinistas and invite d people to pray and work for peace and justice a nd freedom in Nicara gua. I am still proud of that balanced position.

We also worke d for a bilateral, ve rifiable nuc lear freeze in the early 80's. Perha ps the most vivid moment in that campaign came in a n hour-long debate that I had with Je rry Falwell on a popular C NN evening program. Actually the de bate only lasted forty minutes. At 9:00 when the show was to sta rt, Falwe ll ha d not yet arrived at the Ne w York TV studio. So the host said, let’s go a nyway. But ten seconds into my first comment, the studio lost the satellite hookup for the first time ever on that program. For the next eighteen or so minutes, the technicia ns worked furiously to regain contact. Just thirty seconds be fore they succeeded, Falwe ll burst into the studio, apologizing for the tra ffic jam in the Lincoln Tunnel.

As we we nt back on the air, the astonished host explained what had ha ppene d a nd said to Je rry: “ I suppose you think God a rranged all this.” “Of course,” he replied.

We had a tough debate for the next forty minutes.

In the fall of 1987, we moved the main office back to Philade lphia. Up till then, I had been c hair of the board, but for a couple years, starting in 1987, I became executive director and only taught half time at Eastern Semina ry. Van Temple was associate executive director from 1987-1992 and we soon developed a sizeable staff, moving the offices to the basement of Eastern Seminary in 1989 whe re they still are. The ESA Advocate replaced the ESA Update in 1988. We also published ESA Backgrounders, some what substantial analyses of a se ries of specific socio economic-political issues.

One major e ffort of these years was a national campa ign to gather evangelical support for economic sanctions aga inst the apa rthe id government in South Africa.

We sponsored a five- to six- week tour of about 25 evange lica l colle ges by a leading blac k evangelical, Moss Ntlha, from South Arica.

In some ways, this period was our most concentrate d politica l period. From the beginning, ESA dealt with political issues, but our agenda was la rge ly educational and always focused more broadly on developing a biblically ba lanced evange lical social concern. Politics was only one part of that.

But in 1987, ESA played a ce ntral role in la unc hing JustLife, a Political Action Committee see king to e lect members of Congress who were consistently pro-life– i.e., oppose d to abort ion, but also committed to justice for the poor a nd to reversing the nuclear arms race. JustLife was a n evange lica l/Catholic coalition with its own board, but the ESA staff also served as the staff for JustLife and the same office served both organizations. JustLife is one of the visions that never really took off–but we gave it our best shot for a c luste r of years.

1993-2000 is the next major period of ESA’s history. I now had the title Preside nt and had, already a couple years previously, returned to full-time teaching at Eastern Seminary. Cliff Be nzel, a former vice president at World Vision, moved to Philadelphia to run ESA as executive vice- president. This was a period of ma jor foundation grants, a large staff, and growing impact.

PRISM magazine, still our flagship, replaced the ESA Advocate, arriving just in time for ESA’s 20th anniversary ce lebration in Chicago in 1993.

Major foundation grants from Pe w a nd Luce ena bled ESA to run the C rossroa ds program for doctoral scholars studying politics, economics a nd sociology at our top universities. They attended a two- week summe r intensive helping them integrate biblical faith and theology with the ir secular academic work. Each young scholar wrote a monograph. We a lso had a trac k for senior sc hola rs. We eventua lly published about thirty monographs in the Crossroads program, thus adding de pth and sophistication to evangelical political thinking.

In the later 90's, another major grant from the Bauma n Foundation e nable d us to assemble a c ircle of about fifteen top established evangelical scholars to work on various aspects of the following question: “ If we really wa nted to e nd poverty in America, what would a comprehensive, integrated holistic age nda look like?” We eventually publishe d a huge sc hola rly volume with all those essays. I also wrote a popularization of the same material published in the book, Just Gene rosity : A Ne w Vision for Overcoming Poverty in America.

In this same period, ESA be gan to devote more a nd more attention to he lping churc hes combine evange lism and soc ial action. We had always believed a nd advocated that balance, but in the ea rlier years, we fe lt it was evange lical soc ial action that was espec ially lac king and needed emphasis. Now we fe lt it was time to stress the balance. I wrote Cup of Water, Bread of Life a nd Good Ne ws a nd Good Works (actually, the first title was One-Sided Christianity?), ta lking about the theology for and te lling the stories about holistic ministry. Then in 1999, Phil Olson joined the staff as v ice-preside nt for c hurch re lations and director of Network 9:35–our ne w network of congre gations a nd evangelical organizations seeking to truly inte grate evangelism and socia l action=20at the loca l congre gational level. That program and commitment to holistic ministry continues at the heart of ESA’s v ision and work.

The early nineties also saw the be ginning of ESA’s intensive work on the environment. In 1991, I received a call from Pa ul Gorman in Ne w York –someone I had never heard of before. Paul said a mainline Protestant friend ha d told him that I would be interested in the major ne w process he was putting together organizing religious leade rs to care for the environment. I a greed to he lp bring national evangelical leaders to the event. As what is now the Nationa l Religious Partnership for the Environme nt–a coalition of the U.S. Catholic Bishops’ Confere nce, the National Counc il of Churc hes, a Je wish network called the Coalition on the Environme nt and Je wish Life, a nd the Evange lical Environme ntal Network–as this partnership was forming, I said, yes, ESA would put together the evangelical partner for this coalition. And we did –developing staff, writing the influential “An Evangelical Dec laration on the Care of C reation,” publishing books, organizing confe rences and produc ing study mate ria ls. EEN continues as a part of ESA. Probably the two most public and perhaps most politically influential things we have ever done in ESA’s history, in fact, happe ned through EEN. In the mid-term 1994 e lections, conservative Republicans took control o f the House of Representatives with very strong support from conservative evangelicals like Pat Robertson and the Christian Coalition. Every political commentator seemed to assume that all evangelicals embraced the ne w politica l a genda, including the attem pt to gut the Enda nge red Spec ies Act. With sophisticated help from the NRPE, ESA and EEN planned a public day in Washington to tell the political world that ma ny evangelicals cared about the environment and wanted to prese rve, not destroy, the Endangered S pecies Act. We had a large meeting with the Sec retary of the Inte rior and then he ld a press confe rence at the National Press Club. Word got out that a live panther from an Endangered Species would be there and the place was pac ked. I ope ned the press confe rence with prayer and then sa id we we re there because God the C reator cared about his c reation and the refore evangelical Christia ns must ca re for the environment. This ble w apart all the curre nt political stereotypes a nd we we re a top story on the evening ne ws. There we re headline stories all ac ross the country.

The mome ntum for gutting the Endangered Species Act was reversed. In fact, secular environmental leaders have subsequently said: “We won that one because of the evangelicals.”

Just last fall, EEN partic ipated in a nationa l campaign for fuel effic iency in our cars and trucks. Both the Je wish and NCC partners in the NRPE were also enga ged. But Jim Ball, the director of EEN proposed that EEN’s contribution should be called: “What Would Jesus Drive?” Paul Gorman was skeptical, but I said I thought it would work; so we proceeded to develop a TV spot a nd othe r mate ria ls. On the day last fall whe n the partners went to Detroit to meet with Bill Ford a nd othe r top Ford and GM executives, the WWJD sloga n capture d the atte ntion of the media.

We we re on all the major TV ne ws networks a nd on a va riety of C NN programs (I again debated Je rry Falwell on C NN). In fact, the WWJD campa ign was in about 500 diffe rent TV stories and in thousa nds of ne wspa pers across the cou ntry.

Nothing in our history has ever received so muc h nationa l atte ntion!

Some laughed–or moc ked. Others got our se rious point that if Jesus is Lord of a ll of one’s life, the n one’s choice about the car one drives is a n ethical choice that affects the e nvironme nt and our grandc hildren.

Today, ESA has four foc i: promoting holistic ministry that combines evangelism and soc ial action through our Network 9:35; nurturing costly disc ipleship ac ross a broad front in PRISM and our bi- weekly e Pistle; nurturing a biblica lly bala nced evangelical political e ngageme nt; and continuing the work of the Evange lical Environme ntal Network until it is ready to become its own independe nt organization.

THAT THEY MAY HAVE LIFE Evangelicals and Catholics Together (ECT) Statement “I came that they may have life, and have it abundantly.” John 10:10 I We are grateful that as Christians, Evangelicals and Catholics together, we can speak with one voice on a matter of paramount urgency for our society and the world. We address this statement to all who confess Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior and to all people of good will who share our concern for a more just and humane social order.

Recent years have witnessed a new pattern of convergence and cooperation between Evangelicals and Catholics. We are grateful that the project known as ―Evangelicals and Catholics Together‖ (ECT) has played a part in this development—a development that has occasioned both controversy and high hopes within our respective communities. In the public life of our country, the changing relationship between Evangelicals and Catholics has also occasioned curiosity, anxiety, and even alarm.

This convergence has implications for our culture and civil order. In the present statement we intend, however briefly and inadequately, to make the case for what is commonly called ―a culture of life‖—and to do so in a way that invites public deliberation and engages questions of public policy. Our primary purpose, however, is to explain to our communities why we believe that support for a culture of life is an integral part of Christian faith and therefore a morally unavoidable imperative of Christian discipleship.

To those who do not identify with our communities, or with any Christian community, we respectfully suggest that it is in our mutual interest that they try to better understand the reasons and convictions that have recruited so many millions of their fellow-citizens to the cause of the culture of life. Greater understanding does not necessarily lead to agreement, but it at least makes possible a more civil engagement of our disagreements.

The present moment in American public life is frequently described in terms of ―culture wars,‖ and there is some merit in that description. We need not and must not, however, resign ourselves to unremitting warfare. A culture is composed of many parts, but different cultures are distinguished by different understandings of reality, of the meaning of life and death, of rights and duties, of rights and wrongs.

There is what is called a Judeo-Christian worldview, a worldview that was crucial to the formation of our civilization and is, we believe, clearly reflected in the convictions that inspired the American founding. To speak of American culture today is to speak of a culture marked by different worldviews in conflict. So severe is the conflict, also in the political realm, that many despair of finding any commonalities by which warfare can be replaced, or at least tempered, by civil discourse. We refuse to join in that despair.

We refuse to despair because we share with those who oppose us a common humanity. We also share a common interest in sustaining the American experiment in its aspiration to be a free, just, and virtuous society. In our common humanity we share a God-given capacity to reason, to argue, to deliberate, to persuade, and to discover moral truths regarding questions related to the right ordering of our life together. As members of the community of Christians, we are obliged to bear an uncompromising witness to our faith. As members of this civil order, we are also obliged to engage respectfully those who do not share our faith. In this statement we intend to do both.

Between Evangelicals and Catholics there have been long-standing differences on the capacities of human reason. To put it too briefly, Evangelicals (and the Protestant traditions more generally) have accented that human reason has been deeply corrupted by sin. Catholics, on the other hand, while recognizing that human reason has been severely wounded by sin and is in need of healing, have held a higher estimate of reason‘s capacity to discern truth, including moral truth.

We, as Evangelicals and Catholics together, affirm that the knowledge of God necessary for eternal salvation cannot be attained by human reason alone apart from Divine revelation and the Holy Spirit‘s gift of faith‘s response to Jesus Christ the only Savior. (These questions are addressed in more detail in our 1998 statement, ―The Gift of Salvation.‖) We also affirm together that human reason, despite the consequences of sin, has the capacity for discerning, deliberating, and deciding the questions pertinent to the civil order. Some Evangelicals attribute this capa city of reason to ―common grace,‖ as distinct from ―saving grace.‖ Catholics typically speak of the ―natural law,‖ meaning moral law that is knowable in principle by all human beings, even if it is denied by many (Romans 1 and 2). Thus do we, as Evangelicals and Catholics together, firmly reject the claim that disagreements over the culture of life represent a conflict between faith and reason. Both faith and reason are the gift of the one God. Since all truth has its source in Him, all truth is ultimately one, although our human perception of the fullness of truth is partial and inadequate (1 Corinthians 13:12). Thus do we invite those who disagree, including those who do not share the gift of faith in Christ, to join with us in attempting to move beyond ―culture wars‖ to a reasonable deliberation of the right ordering of our life together.

As Christians, we are informed, inspired, and sustained by our faith in a commitment to a culture of life, which includes the protection and care of the unborn, the severely disabled, the dependent elderly, and the dying. The culture of life encompasses also the poor, the marginalized, and those who, for whatever reason, are vulnerable to neglect or exploitation by others. This is not a uniquely Christian commitment. Disagreement on our obligations to those in need should not be viewed as a conflict between Christians and non-Christians.

We are sadly aware that many who identify themselves as Christians do not share our understanding of a culture of life. It is not the case that we wish to ―impose‖ our moral convictions on our fellow-citizens or, as some recklessly charge, to establish a ―theocracy.‖ Our intention is not to impose but to propose, educate, and persuade, in the hope that, through free deliberation and decision, our

society will be turned toward a more consistent respect for the inestimable gift that is human life.

This statement and the questions addressed are emphatically public in nature.

Christianity—its scriptures, doctrine, intellectual tradition, and institutions of communal allegiance and mission—are part of our common history. Christianity claims at least the nominal adherence of the great majority in our society. To be a Christian is a personal but not a private decision. To be a Christian is to be associated with a historical movement bearing public witness to universal moral truths.

Such truths are not accepted by all in our society, nor is there complete agreement about their meaning and implications among all who do accept them.

But the assertion of these truths, including their significance for public policy, is part of, and in no way to be excluded from, genuinely public discourse. Whatever is meant by ―the separation of church and state,‖ it cannot mean the separation of public life and public policy from the deepest convictions, including moral convictions, of the great majority of a nation‘s citizens.

As Christian truth claims are public, so also are the questions pertinent to a culture of life. There is no more inescapably public and political question than who belongs to the polis of which we are part. The contention over abortion, for instance, is not about when human life begins. That is a biological and medical question about which there is no reasonable dispute. The moral and political dispute is over which human beings, at whatever state of development or decline, possess rights that we are bound to respect. The question is this: Who belongs to the community for which we accept public responsibility?

In what follows we hope to make the case that the defense of the humanum is an inescapable consequence of the gospel. Our position with respect to questions such as abortion, euthanasia, assisted suicide, and the creation and destruction of embryos for research purposes is integral to the Christian understanding of reality. Every human life is, from conception, created by God and is infinitely precious in His sight. The fulfillment of human life is, by the grace of God, ―life and life abundant‖ through faith in Jesus Christ who said, ‗I am the way, the truth, and the life‘ (John 14:6).‖ We believe it is of utmost importance that everyone involved in the public discussion of these questions understand the unbreakable connection between a Christian worldview and the defense of human life. We ca n no more abandon our contention for a culture of life than we can abandon our allegiance to the lordship of Christ, for our contention is inseparably part of that allegiance.

At the same time, we contend that the public policies pertinent to the defense of the humanum are supported by reasons that are accessible to all and should be convincing to all. The term ―humanism‖ is frequently employed in opposition to Christian faith, as in the phrase ―secular humanism.‖ We propose a deeper and richer humanism that is firmly grounded in the bedrock of scriptural truth, that is elaborated in the history of Christian thought, that is in accord with clear reason, that honors the best in our civilization's tradition, and that holds the promise of a future more worthy of the dignity of the human person who is the object of God‘s

infinite love and care. This more authentic humanism is in no way alien to Christianity. There is in world history no teaching more radically humanistic than the claim that God became a human being in order that human beings might participate in the life of God, now and forever.

II Our contention for a culture of life is made possible and imperative by the gospel of life. The word ―gospel‖ is used in different ways. Gospel (from the Greek euangelion) means good news. The Apostle Paul writes: Now I would remind you, brethren, in what terms I preached to you the gospel, which you received, in which you stand, by which you are saved, if you hold it fast – unless you believed in vain‘ (I Corinthians 15:1-2). The good news is centered in Jesus Christ—his birth, teaching, healing ministry, holiness of life, redemptive suffering and death, his resurrection victory over sin and death, his present reign, his abiding presence with his disciples, and his promised coming in glory to restore all things to God. ―God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation‖ (2 Corinthians 5:19). The good news is that, despite all the evil for which we human beings are responsible, ―God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. For God sent the Son into the world, not to condemn the world, but that the world might be saved through him‖ (John 3:16-17).

The gospel of life includes the very creation. All that exists is brought into being and sustained in being by love and for love, for ―God is love‖ (1 John 4:8). The whole of creation is a gift and constitutes an order graced by the love of God. In that same love, God bestowed upon humanity a unique dignity. ―So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. And God blessed them, and God said to them, ‗Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it‘‖ (Genesis 1:27-28). Of life in all its created forms we are told, ―And God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good‖ (Genesis 1:31).

God did not recant that judgment even when man turned against God and, as a consequence, against his brother. To Cain, the first murderer, God says, ―The voice of your brother‘s blood is crying to me from the ground‖ (Genesis 4:10). The cry of innocent blood did not go unheeded but began the long gospel story of restoration, including the covenant with Abraham and the people of Israel which prophetically points toward the culmination of God‘s self-revelation and redemptive work in Jesus Christ. Thus humanity is called ―to Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood that speaks more graciously than the blood of Abel‖ (Hebrews 12:24). In Christ the dignity and eternal destiny of humanity is restored. St. Paul declares, ―For as by a man came death, by man has come also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive‖ (1 Corinthians 15:21-22).

The radical humanism of Christianity was and is a new thing in history. Irenaeus, the second-century Church Father, declared, ―The glory of God is man fully alive.‖ From the earliest non-canonical Christian writing, the Didache (probably written

in the latter half of the first century), we learn how Christians confronted the pagan culture of the time: There are two ways, a way of life and a way of death; there is a great difference between them. . . . In accordance with the precept of the teaching ―You shall not kill,‖ you shall not put a child to death by abortion or kill it once it is born. . . . The way of death is this: They show no compassion for the poor, they do not suffer with the suffering, they do not acknowledge their Creator, they kill their children and by abortion cause God‘s creatures to perish; they drive away the needy, oppress the suffering, they are advocates of the rich and unjust judges of the poor; they are filled with every sin. May you be ever guiltless of all these sins!

There are many ways in which the dignity of the human person, created in the image and likeness of God, is violated. Both historically and at present there is genocide, unjust war, innocent victims of just wars, economic exploitation, the neglect and abuse of children, the disrespect and mistreatment of women, the abandonment of the aged, racial oppression and discrimination, the persecution of religious believers, and religious and ideological fanaticisms that are the declared enemies of freedom. The depressing list goes on and on. We have no delusions that such evils will be entirely eliminated before Christ returns in glory to set all things right. But, as in the apostolic era, so also in our time, Christian witness and life is to stand in clear contrast and opposition to such evils, for we are called to be ―the salt of the earth‖ and ―the light of the world‖ (Matthew 5:1314).

While we cannot remedy all the evils in the world, we can—if we are prepared to suffer and even die rather than to do evil—always refuse to willingly participate in, support, or condone the doing of evil. The way of the gospel of life is in the keeping of God‘s commandments, which are summarized in this: ―You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your soul, all your strength, and all your mind; and your neighbor as yourself.‖ Jesus said, ―Do this and you will live‖ (Luke 10:28).

The love of neighbor takes many forms. In Matthew 25 the righteous are rewarded and the wicked condemned by the measures of whether they fed the hungry, gave drink to the thirsty, welcomed the stranger, clothed the naked, and visited those who are sick or in prison. By these and other measures of love for our neighbor, we all fall short. Love for the neighbor begins, however, with respect for the neighbor‘s right to be, by honoring the gift of God that is the neighbor‘s life. Thus the most basic commandment of neighbor-love is, ―You shall not kill‖ (Exodus 20:13, Deuteronomy 5:17). ―You shall not kill‖ is rightly understood as ―You shall not murder.‖ Recognizing the honorable exception of those who embrace absolute pacifism, Christians believe that there are moral duties to protect life that may entail the taking of life, as in defense against lethal aggression. Most Christians, past and present, have also considered capital punishment to be morally permissible, citing the words of St. Paul that the ruler ―does not bear the sword in vain; he is the servant of God to execute his wrath on the wrongdoer‖ (Romans 13:4). Some hold that capital punishment is not necessary to protect society and therefore is

not morally permissible, while others hold that it is both permissible and necessary.

Our differences on capital punishment are not differences between Evangelicals and Catholics, but are based on different judgments regarding the need for capital punishment, at least in developed societies, and on the widespread perception that capital punishment is in tension, if not conflict, with a consistent ethic of life.

At the same time, we are in firm agreement on the critical moral difference between killing the innocent and punishing those who are guilty of killing the innocent.

The ominous, and still recent, development in our society and others is the addition of new justifications of killing. Beyond self-defense, just war, and capital punishment, the principle is now asserted and supported by appeal to law that we are justified in killing human beings who are, for whatever reason, unwanted or deemed to be an excessive burden to others.

There is today no rational disagreement that the child in the womb is, from conception, a living being that is undeniably a human being. Barring natural tragedy, as in miscarriage, or lethal intervention, as in abortion, this being will become what everyone recognizes as a human baby. It is false and pernicious to claim that the unborn child is, at early stages of development, only a potential human being. No life that is not a human being has the potential of becoming a human being, and no life that has the potential of becoming a human being is not a human being.

Every human life is intended by God from eternity for eternity. Human life is sacred because it is the creation of God, the Lord of life. ―For you did form my inward parts, you knit me together in my mother‘s womb‖ (Psalm 139:13).

Nature shares in the consequences of sin and innumerable lives are lost before they have an opportunity to develop in the womb, as many die in disasters such as famine, earthquakes, and hurricanes. Mortality is the common denominator of all life on earth. We are morally responsible, however, for the protection and care of life created in the image and likeness of God. The commandment, ―You shall not kill,‖ is the negatively stated minimum of what we owe to our fellow human beings.

The direct and intentional taking of innocent human life in abortion, euthanasia, assisted suicide, and embryonic research is rightly understood as murder. In the exceedingly rare instance of direct threat to the life of the mother, saving her life may entail the death of the unborn child. Such rare and tragic instances are in sharpest contrast to the unlimited abortion license created by the Supreme Court, resulting in more than forty million deaths since 1973.

The blindness of so many to this moral atrocity has many sources but is finally to be traced to the seductive ways of evil advanced by Satan. Jesus says, ―He was a murderer from the beginning, and has nothing to do with the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks according to his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies‖ (John 8:44).

The direct and intentional taking of innocent human life may be attended by what is believed to be compassion, especially in the case of the dependent and debilitated aged. While we can sympathize with those who view their own life or the life of another as a burden and not a gift, and while, by the grace of God, there can be repentance and forgiveness for those who are guilty of committing great evil, there can be no moral justification of murder. We are determined to employ every legal means available to protect, in law and in life, the innocent and vulnerable members of the human community.

We plead also with our fellow citizens who do not accept the authority of God‘s commandments or the good news that is the gospel of life to consider the consequences of having created a license to kill. In the present state of our tragically disordered law, citizens are given, in the case of abortion, a private ―right‖ to kill those who are too young, too small, too handicapped, too burdensome, or, for whatever reason, not ―wanted.‖ When this ―right‖ and the lethal logic that supports it is established in law, there is no principled reason why it should not be applied to the ―unwanted‖ at any point along life‘s way, as advocates of eugenics, euthanasia, and assisted suicide logically contend.

The inescapably public question posed is whether we as a political community adhere to the founding proposition articulated in the Declaration of Independence that all people are endowed by their Creator with certain ―unalienable rights,‖ beginning with the right to life. The course of progress in our political history has been one of inclusion rather than exclusion. Most notable has been the inclusion of slaves and their descendants, and the recognition of the political rights of women. The foundational moral claim on which our polity rests is the claim that all human beings are created equal and are the bearers of rights that we are obliged to respect.

Among the most encouraging developments of recent decades, in our society and the world, is the increased interest in the defense of human rights. This has occurred in large part in reaction to the unspeakable horror of ideologically driven mass murder under the regimes of Nazism and Communism which denied the equal rights of all. Especially heartening is the growing involvement of Christian communities in the defense of religious, political, and civil rights around the world. Such concern is premised upon the conviction that all human beings are created equal with respect to God-given rights that we are bound to respect. That is the premise attacked by the current abort ion regime and related aggressions against the gift of life. Rights are not to be confused with individual desires or felt needs. Rights are joined to duties. Those who cannot assert their rights depend upon others doing their duty. The right to be protected entails our duty to protect.

The inescapable question is this: Why should we care about those who are weak, dependent, burdensome, unproductive, and undeveloped or gravely diminished in their capacity for the interactions we associate with being human? If we are unable to give a morally principled answer to that question, the very concept of human rights is emptied of obliging force and reduced to utilitarian calculation or arbitrary sentiment. The lethal logic invoked in support of the abortion license imperils the lives and well-being of millions who are severely handicapped or who are cared for in the many thousands of facilities for the aged and radically dependent.

Those most in need of defense are those who cannot defend themselves. We are called to speak on behalf of those who cannot speak for themselves. Among the most defenseless are the unborn child, the severely disabled, and the dependent elderly. There are today legal protections of the disabled and elderly, but the unborn are totally dependent and totally vulnerable to the will of others. Once fully born, they are deemed to have rights that are protected in law, even though they are at that point no more human beings and no less dependent than they were hours, weeks, or months before. Yet before birth, and even in the very process of being born, they are now deemed not to have rights that society is obliged to respect. This perverse view of human rights is irrational and incoherent. Its result is the unjust killings of many millions of those who are indisputably human beings, and the undoing of the very concept of human rights.

We recognize that, short of Our Lord‘s return in glory, there will always be great evil in the world. Human history is the drama of conflict between truth and falsehood, light and darkness, life and death. The witness to the gospel of life echoes today the words of Moses to the children of Israel: ―I call heaven and earth to witness against you this day that I have set before you life and death, blessing and curse; therefore choose life that you and your children may live‖ (Deuteronomy 30:19). With the apostle Paul, we contend, and call others to contend, against the ―principalities and powers‖ of the present darkness (Ephesians 6:12).

There will likely always be abortions, as there will be other great evils. In the words of Jesus, ―Temptations to sin are sure to come; but woe to him by whom they come‖ (Luke 17:1). While sin and temptations to sin are constant, the notion that the killing of the innocent is a ―right‖ in law is relatively recent, and has thrown our society into legal, political, and moral confusion and conflict. The way to justice and restored civility is a firm commitment to the goal of a society in which every vulnerable human being, including every unborn child, is protected in law and welcomed in life.

The healing professions in our society have been deeply corrupted by the culture of death. Not only in abortion but also in practices such as doctor-assisted suicide, the noble calling of medicine has been grievously debased. In medical education, we witness the ominous abandonment of the Hippocratic Oath and its prohibition of killing.

We earnestly plead with medical practitioners to recover the moral integrity of their profession. With specific reference to the aged, the debilitated, and the dying, it is often the case that restoration to health is not possible. But no life is without value or is unworthy of life. While there is no obligation to prolong the process of imminent death, the intentional hastening of death is morally prohibited. The healing profession is also the caring profession. We cannot always heal, but we can always care. Also in the most difficult of cases, it is a perverse and twisted idea of compassion that seduces medical practitioners into violating the imperative always to care and never to kill. We gratefully acknowledge and prayerfully encourage medical practitioners who strive to restore their profession to the unqualified service of life.

We are keenly aware of the burden of guilt borne, and often painfully experienced, by those who have been complicit in the culture of death. Women beyond numbering mourn for their children whom they denied the living of the life that was theirs. As with King Herod‘s killing of the innocents, so also now: ―A voice was heard in Ramah, wailing and loud lamentation, Rachel weeping for her children; she could not be consoled, because they were no more‖ (Matthew 2:18).

A striking feature of the movement against abortion is the leadership of women who have experienced the horror and heartbreak of abortion and plead with their sisters to choose life. They and many others work selflessly in helping women with crisis pregnancies, and also in assisting with adoptions.

Men beyond numbering are complicit in the culture of death. The legal abortion license has made it easier to sexually exploit women; to abandon them or refuse to support them in the bearing of the new life for which men are equally responsible; and even to coerce them into having the child killed. This is a wickedness of unspeakable proportions, and is only compounded by men who self-servingly construe the abortion license as a form of liberation for the women they exploit.

As the sin is great, so is God‘s mercy greater. ―In this God shows his love for us, that while we were yet sinners Christ died for us. Since, therefore, we are now justified by his blood, much more shall we saved by him from the wrath of God‖ (Romans 5:8-9). As the psalm declares: For as the heavens are high above the earth so great is his steadfast love toward those who fear him; As far as the east is from the west, so far does he remove our transgressions from us. (Psalm 103:11-12) We thank God for the women and men who, having been complicit in the evil of abortion, have been led to contrition, repentance, and newness of life; for abortionists who have abandoned their trafficking in death; for those who have established thousands of crisis pregnancy centers to assist women in troubled circumstances to welcome the gift of new life; and for all who have over the years sustained a growing pro-life movement for change toward a culture of life. This is a movement for change that, more than any in American history, claims the allegiance of millions who have no personal stake in the cause other than the protection of the innocent. It is most particularly gratifying that the leadership of this movement is now passing to a younger generation that views with horrified repugnance an abortion regime to which so many of their elders had become morally numbed.

Even as the dark years of the unlimited abortion license may be coming to an end, the culture of death insinuates itself into the sciences, and most particularly into the field of biotechnology. The creation and destruction of human life for research, cloning, and related purposes underscore the truth that the pro-life movement is for the duration, meaning until Our Lord returns in glory.

Our churches do not simply support the pro-life movement as a social cause.

Because the gospel of life is integral to God‘s loving purpose for his creation, the Church of Jesus Christ, comprehensively understood, is a pro-life movement continuing God‘s mission until the end of time. In the light of this truth, we plead with Christians who support the legal license to kill the innocent to consider whether they have not set themselves against the will of God and, to that extent, separated themselves from the company of Christian discipleship.

There are no doubt many reasons for our society‘s perilous drift toward a culture of death. One major cause is the abortion regime established by the Supreme Court by the Roe v. Wade decision of January 22, 1973. That decision is rightly described as an act of raw judicial power that eliminated in all fifty states existing legal protections of unborn children. It is an encouraging measure of the moral health of our society that the abortion license decreed by Roe has not been accepted by the great majority of Americans. It now seems possible that this question will be returned to the process of democratic deliberation and decision in the several states. In that process, we as Evangelicals and Catholics together pledge our relentless efforts to persuade our fellow-citizens to secure justice in law for the most vulnerable among us.

While political and legal developments are important, they are not of paramount importance. Deeper and of greater consequence is the moral and cultural impoverishment in our understanding of the gift of life, of our duties to others— especially to those who are most dependent—and of individual freedom that finds its true fulfillment not in license but in love.

Our public culture is debased by distortions of sexuality that are antithetical to the flourishing of marriage, fidelity, and parenthood. The indispensable institution of the family, which is the sanctuary of life, is widely devalued and weakened by divorce. Moreover, while we are not agreed on the moral permissibility of artificial contraception, we recognize the sad effects of a widespread ―contraceptive mentality‖ that divorces sexual love from procreation and views children as a burden to be avoided rather than as a gift to be cherished. We plead with the members of our communities, Evangelical and Catholic, to consider anew the ca ll to be open to new life, and the meaning of that call for the relationship between unitive and procreative sexual love within the bond of marriage.

Finally, our society‘s drift toward a culture of death will not be arrested and reversed without a bolder and more persuasive witness to the gospel of life centered in Jesus Christ who is ―the way, the truth, and the life.‖ Whatever our cultural circumstance, whatever the ebb and flow of political and legal fortunes, our first duty is evangelization: to share ―in season and out of season‖ (2 Timothy 4:2) the good news of the unsurpassable gift of eternal life, beginning now, in knowing Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior.

To know him is to serve him, also in contending for a more just social order that defends the gift of life wherever it is threatened. As did the early Christians to the society of their time, so we propose to our fellow-citizens a new humanism. This biblical humanism is deeply grounded in the dignity of the human person at every stage of development, disadvantage, or decline; it is supportive of the founding

convictions of our nation; and it holds the promise of keeping at bay the barbaric devaluations of human life to which history is so manifestly prone.

We cannot and would not impose this vision of a culture of life upon others. We do propose to our fellow-Christians and to all Americans that they join with us in a process of deliberation and decision that holds the promise of a more just and humane society committed, in life and law, to honor the inestimable dignity of every human being created in the image of likeness of God. For our part, as Evangelicals and Catholics together, we refuse to despair of the power of public witness and persuasion in the service of every member of the human community, for whom Christ came ―that they may have life and have it abundantly.‖ Signers & Endorsers

Organization

Evangelical Protestants: Andrews, Alan Briscoe, Jill Brown, Dr. Harold Chapell, Dr. Bryan Colson, C harles Dockery, Dr. David George, Dr. Timothy Guinness, Dr. Os Gushee, Dr. David Haggard, Ted Hill, Dr. Kent Hybels, Bill James, Dr. Frank Johns, Dr. Cheryl Bridges Litfin, Dr. Duane Moore, The Rev . T. M. Mouw, Dr. Richard Neff, David Oden, Dr. Thomas Packer, Dr. J. I. Perkins, Tony Plantinga, Dr. Cornelius Sider, Dr. Ron Sumner, Dr. Sarah Tada, Joni Eareckson Vanhoozer, Dr. Kevin Warren, Rick White, Dr. James Emery Woodbridge, Dr. John

The Navigators Telling the Truth Reformed Theological Seminary Covenant Theological Seminary Prison Fellowship Union U niversity Beeson Divinity School The Trinity Forum Union U niversity National Association of Evangelicals Church of the Nazarene Willow Creek Community Church Reformed Theological Seminary Church of God School of Theology Wheaton College The Wilberforce Forum, Prison Fellowship Fuller Theological Seminary Christianity Today Drew University (Emeritus) Regent College Family Research Council Calvin Theological Seminary Evangelicals for Social Action Azusa Pacific University Joni and Friends International Disability Center Trinity Evangelical Divinity School Saddleback Church Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminar Trinity Evangelical Divinity School

Catholic: Buckley, Dr. James J. Casarella, Dr. Matthew Culpepper, Dr. Gary Dulles, Avery Cardinal, S.J. Guarino, Fr. Thomas Kennedy, Fr. Arthur Levering, Dr. Matthew Martin, Fr. Francis Neuhaus, Fr. Richard John Oakes, Fr. Edward T., S.J. Weigel, George Wilken, Dr. Robert Louis

Loyola College in Maryland Catholic U niversity of America Providence College Fordham University Seton Hall U niversity University of St. Thomas Ave Maria University Mother of God Community Institute on Religion and Public Life Mundelein Seminary Ethics and Public Policy Center University of Virginia

The Honorable Barack Obama President of the United States The White House Washington, DC 20500 June 4, 2009 Dear Mr. President, As American Christian leaders with a shared commitment to a just and lasting Israeli-Palestinian peace, we have come together at a time of great opportunity and urgency. After decades of tragic conflict, many Israelis and Palestinians despair of the possibility of peace, yet with your determined leadership we believe the promise of two viable, secure and independent states can be realized.

We commend your message to the people of the Middle East and your challenge to all of us to work for Holy Land peace as we seek to build a more positive future for the people of the region and the world. We are grateful that you have identified resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as a top priority and made clear your Administration’s commitment to sustained, handson diplomacy. As you embark on peace efforts, we ask you to provide a clear framework for an end to the conflict, help Israelis and Palestinians make the difficult decisions necessary to achieve lasting peace, and hold both parties to account when they fail to honor their commitments.

Mr. President, you have assumed office at one of the most critical moments in the long history of this conflict. While the international community and majorities of the Israeli and Palestinian people are all committed to a two state solution as the best option for achieving peace and security, the window of opportunity is rapidly closing. Continued settlement growth and expansion are rapidly diminishing any possibility for the creation of a viable Palestinian state. The targeting of Israeli civilians through ongoing rocket fire and the insistent rejection by some of Israel’s right to exist reinforces the destructive status quo. These actions, along with the route of the separation barrier, movement restrictions, and continued home demolitions, serve to undermine Palestinians and Israelis alike who seek peace. As hope dims, the threat of violence grows and hardliners are strengthened.

We share a common commitment to all the people of the Holy Land—Jews, Christians and Muslims— and are particularly concerned with the plight of the Palestinian Christian community. In the birthplace of our faith, one of the world’s oldest Christian communities is dwindling rapidly, and with them the possibility of a day when three thriving faith communities live in shared peace in Jerusalem. Mr. President, it is apparent that unless there is an IsraeliPalestinian peace agreement Christians in the Holy Land may cease to exist as a viable community.

Now is indeed the time for immediate and bold American leadership. Fruitful diplomacy will require U.S. engagement with a Palestinian unity government committed to peace with the state of Israel. We commend your important statements pressing both Israel and the Palestinians to live up to their obligations, and we urge your Administration to continue to bolster Palestinian

capacity to halt violence and continue to demonstrate firm dedication to a viable Palestinian state by exhibiting no tolerance for Israeli settlement activity. While working to end rocket attacks against the people of southern Israel, the U.S. should also seek immediate relief for the population of Gaza—living in rubble and without basic necessities—by ending restrictions on humanitarian goods and opening the borders to reconstruction material, commerce and transit in a secure manner.

We welcome your call for people on both sides to recognize the pain and aspirations of the other.

Because of this conflict many have lost the ability to see the other as human beings worthy of dignity and respect. An entire generation of Israelis and Palestinians has grown up amidst violence and hatred. We pledge to join with you to work with and support those in both societies who seek peace, justice, and security, standing beside those who hope for a better future for themselves and for the generations that follow.

The current political stalemate and declining situation on the ground demonstrate that Israelis and Palestinians cannot reach a negotiated agreement without a strong, helping hand. We urge your Administration to present proposals that go beyond the mere principle of two states and lay out a just and equitable solution that provides dignity, security and sovereignty for both peoples.

Moreover, we appreciate your strong support for a comprehensive peace and we look forward to diplomatic efforts to build upon the historic Arab Peace Initiative, with its offer of recognition and normalization of relations with Israel in exchange for an end to the occupation.

There is no greater work than the Psalmist’s call to “seek peace and pursue it” and no more critical time than now to finally end the conflict in the Holy Land (Ps. 34:14). We stand ready to support your bold action and are rallying Christians nationwide around robust U.S. peacemaking efforts to achieve Israeli-Palestinian peace. Our prayers and mutual commitment are with you in this difficult and most important task.

Sincerely, The Rev. Dr. Jimmy R. Allen Coordinator New Baptist Covenant

Sr. J. Lora Dambroski, OSF President, Leadership Conference of Women Religious

The Most Rev. Archbishop Khajag Barsamian Primate Diocese of the Armenian Church of America (Eastern)

His Eminence Archbishop Demetrios of America Primate Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America

David Black President Eastern University

Marie Dennis Director Maryknoll Office for Global Concerns

Bishop Wayne Burkette Moravian Church in America, Southern Province

Dr. Joy Fenner Former President Baptist General Convention of Texas

Tony Campolo Speaker Eastern University, St. Davids, PA

Leighton Ford President Leighton Ford Ministries

Israel L. Gaither Commissioner National Commander The Salvation Army

Mor Cyril Aphrem Karim Archbishop Archdiocese of the Syrian Orthodox Church of Antioch for the Eastern USA

Rev. Dr. David Emmanuel Goatley Executive Secretary-Treasurer Lott Carey Baptist Foreign Mission Convention

Margaret Mary Kimmins, OSF President Franciscan Action Network

Rev. Wesley Granberg-Michaelson General Secretary Reformed Church in America

Rev. Dr. Michael Kinnamon General Secretary National Council of Churches

Ken Hackett President Catholic Relief Services

Rev. Michael E. Livingston Executive Director International Council of Community Churches Immediate Past President, National Council of Churches

The Rev. Mark S. Hanson Presiding Bishop Evangelical Lutheran Church in America President, Lutheran World Federation Dennis Hollinger President Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary Most Rev. Howard J. Hubbard Bishop of Albany Chairman Committee on International Justice and Peace United States Conference of Catholic Bishops Dr. Joel C. Hunter Senior Pastor, Northland Church Member, Executive Committee of the National Association of Evangelicals Bill Hybels Senior Pastor Willow Creek Community Church Lynne Hybels Advocate for Global Engagement Willow Creek Community Church The Most Rev. Katharine Jefferts Schori Presiding Bishop The Episcopal Church Reverend A. Wayne Johnson General Secretary National Missionary Baptist Convention of America

Reverend Willie Maynard Treasurer, National Baptist Convention, Inc. Pastor, St. Paul Baptist Church, LA His Eminence Theodore Cardinal McCarrick Catholic Archbishop Emeritus of Washington Rev. John L. McCullough Executive Director and CEO Church World Service Mary Ellen McNish General Secretary American Friends Service Committee Rev. Dr. A. Roy Medley General Secretary American Baptist Churches Richard J. Mouw President Fuller Theological Seminary David Neff Editor in Chief Christianity Today Stanley J. Noffsinger General Secretary Church of the Brethren Bishop Gregory Vaughn Palmer, President The Council of Bishops The United Methodist Church

Rev. Gradye Parsons Stated Clerk of the General Assembly Presbyterian Church, (USA)

Jim Wallis President Sojourners

Very Rev. Thomas Picton, CSsR President Conference of Major Superiors of Men

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

Reverend Tyrone Pitts General Secretary Progressive National Baptist Convention, Inc.

Most Rev. Thomas G. Wenski Catholic Bishop of Orlando

Most Rev. John H. Ricard, SSJ Catholic Bishop of Pensacola-Tallahassee Bob Roberts, Jr. Pastor NorthWood Church, Keller, TX Metropolitan PHILIP (Saliba) Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America Rolando Santiago Executive Director Mennonite Central Committee U.S. Dr. Chris Seiple President Institute for Global Engagement Robert Seiple Former Ambassador-at-large for International Religious Freedom Reverend William J. Shaw President, National Baptist Convention, Inc Pastor, White Rock Baptist Church, PA Ron Sider President Evangelicals for Social Action Reverend T. DeWitt Smith President Progressive National Baptist Convention, Inc. Richard Stearns President World Vision Rev. John H. Thomas General Minister and President United Church of Christ

The Right Rev. John F. White Ecumenical and Urban Affairs Officer African Methodist Episcopal Church Joe Volk Executive Secretary Friends Committee on National Legislation Bishop Gabino Zavala Bishop President Pax Christi USA: National Catholic Peace Movement !

ARE EVANGELICALS GOING TO HELL? (Or: DO WE BELIEVE WHAT JESUS SAID?) Listening to Jesus is surely the best way to understand God’s heart. Jesus said bluntly that if we do not feed the hungry and clothe the naked, we go to hell (Matt.

25:41). If you judged simply on the basis of how much they spend on themselves and how much on the poor, do you think most American evangelicals believe what Jesus said is true?

There are hundreds and hundreds of biblical verses about God’s concern for the poor. In fact, that is probably the second most common theme in the whole Bible. Do the evangelical preachers and leaders you know come close to talking about the poor as much as the Bible does? Who is wining the hearts of American evangelicals: Jesus or the advertisers promoting consumerism?

Poverty is still widespread in our world. According to the World Bank, 1.2 billion people struggle to survive on just one dollar a day. Another 2 billion have only two dollars a day.

Most Americans, on the other hand, are among the richest 20 percent of the world’s people. In fact, the richest 20 percent are 150 times richer than the poorest 20 percent in the world. But our congregational giving (as a percent of our income) has dropped almost every year since 1968. In 1968, the average American congregational member gave about a third (3.1%) of a tithe of their income to their church. It has dropped almost every year–as our income has gone up and up!–and now stands at less than a quarter (2.5%) of a tithe.

Recently, congregational giving actually increased very slightly (from 2.39% in 1993 to 2.52% in 1998) but all of that increase has been in the area of congregational finances (buildings, salaries, etc., to serve ourselves). Benevolence (giving for causes beyond the congregation) has continued to decline (see 2_98).

Does this kind of behavior make sense for people who claim the Bible as God’s revealed truth?

I know the advertisements are seductive. But surely God’s word and the living Spirt of God are more powerful. As I summarize the biblical teaching about the poor and justice, all I ask is that you pray this prayer: “Please Lord Jesus, change me so that I begin to share your love for the poor.”

Four biblical truths about the poor are essential if the church today is to be faithful.

1. Repeatedly, the Bible says that the Sovereign of history works to lift up the poor and oppressed. That teaching is especially clear when we look at the central points of

revelation history. Consider the Exodus. Certainly God acted there to keep the promise to Abraham and to call out the chosen people of Israel. But again and again the texts say God also intervened because God hated the oppression of the poor Israelites (Exod. 3:7– 8; 6:5–7). Annually at the harvest festival the people of Israel repeated this confession: “The Egyptians mistreated us. . . . Then we cried out to the LORD, the God of our fathers, and the LORD heard our voice and saw our misery, toil and oppression. So the LORD brought us out of Egypt” (Deut. 26:6–8). God acts in history to lift up the poor and oppressed.

2. The Bible also teaches a second, more disturbing truth. Sometimes, the Lord of history tears down rich and powerful people. Mary’s song is shocking: “My soul glorifies the Lord . . . He has filled the hungry with good things but has sent the rich away empty” (Luke 1:46, 53). James is even more nasty: “Now listen, you rich people, weep and wail because of the misery that is coming upon you” (James 5:1).

What is going on? Is creating wealth a bad thing? No. The Bible is very clear that God has created a gorgeous world and placed human beings in it to revel in its splendor and produce an abundance of good things. Is God biased? No. The Bible explicitly declares that God has no bias either toward the rich or the poor (Deut. 10:17–18).

What then is the problem? The Bible has a simple answer. It is because the rich sometimes get rich by oppressing the poor. Or because they have plenty and neglect the needy. In either case, God is furious.

James warned the rich so harshly because they had hoarded wealth and refused to pay their workers (5:2–6). Repeatedly, the prophets said the same thing (Ps. 10; Isa. 3:14–25; Jer. 22:13–19). “Among my people are wicked men who lie in wait like men who snare birds and like those who set traps to catch men. Like cages full of birds, their houses are full of deceit; they have become rich and powerful and have grown fat and sleek. . . . They do not defend the rights of the poor. Should I not punish them for this?”

(Jer. 5:26–29).

Repeatedly, the prophets warned that God was so outraged that he would destroy the nations of Israel and Judah. Because of the way they “trample on the heads of the poor . . . and deny justice to the oppressed,” Amos predicted terrible captivity (2:7; 5:11; 6:4, 7; 7:11, 17). So did Isaiah and Micah (Isa. 10:1–3; Micah 2:2; 3:12). And it happened just as they foretold. According to both the Old and New Testaments, God destroys people and societies that get rich by oppression.

But what if we work hard and create wealth in just ways? That is good and God is pleased—as long as we do not forget to share. No matter how justly we have acquired our wealth, God demands that we act generously toward the poor. When we do not, the Bible says, God treats us the same way he does those who oppress the poor. There is not a hint in Jesus’ story of the rich man and Lazarus that the rich man exploited Lazarus to acquire wealth. He simply neglected to share. So God punished him (Luke 16:19–31).

Ezekiel contains a striking explanation for the destruction of Sodom: “Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and

unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. . . . Therefore I did away with them as you have seen” (16:49–50).

Again, the text does not charge them with gaining wealth by oppression. It was because they refused to share their abundance that God destroyed the city.

The Bible is clear. If we get rich by oppression or if we have wealth and do not reach out generously to the poor, the Lord acts in history to destroy us. God judges societies by what they do to the people at the bottom. That is how much God cares for the poor.

3. The next biblical truth about the poor is this: The Bible says that God identifies with the poor so strongly that caring for them is almost like helping God. “He who is kind to the poor lends to the LORD” (Prov. 19:17). On the other hand, one “who oppresses the poor shows contempt for their Maker” (14:31).

Jesus’ parable of the sheep and goats is the ultimate commentary on these two proverbs. Jesus surprises those on the right with his insistence that they had fed and clothed him when he was cold and hungry. When they protested that they could not remember ever doing that, Jesus replied: “Whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me” (Matt. 25:40). If we believe his words, we look on the poor and neglected with entirely new eyes.

4. Finally, the Scriptures teach that God’s faithful people share God’s special concern for the poor. God commanded Israel not to treat widows, orphans, and foreigners the way the Egyptians had treated them (Exod. 22:21–24). Instead, they should love the poor just as God cared for them at the Exodus (Exod. 22:21–24; Deut. 15:13–15). When Jesus’ disciples throw parties, they should especially invite the poor and disabled (Luke 14:12–14; Heb. 13:1–3). Paul held up Jesus’ model of becoming poor to show how generously the Corinthians should contribute to the poor in Jerusalem (2 Cor. 8:9).

The Bible, however, goes one shocking step further. God insists that if we do not imitate his concern for the poor we are not really his people—no matter how frequent our worship or how orthodox our creeds. Because Israel failed to correct oppression and defend poor widows, Isaiah insisted that Israel was really the pagan people of Gomorrah (1:10–17). God despised their fasting because they tried to worship God and oppress their workers at the same time (Isa. 58:3–7). Through Amos, the Lord shouted in fury that the very religious festivals he had ordained made him angry and sick. Why? Because the rich and powerful were mixing worship and oppression of the poor (5:21–24). Jesus was even more harsh. To those who did not feed the hungry and clothe the naked, he will utter a terrible judgment: “Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels” (Matt. 25:41). The apostle John issues the same stark warning: “If anyone has material possessions and sees his brother in need but has no pity on him, how can the love of God be in him?” (1 John 3:17).

Jeremiah 22:13–19 is a most astonishing passage. Good king Josiah had a wicked son Jehoiakim. When Jehoiakim became king, he built a fabulous palace by oppressing

his workers. God sent the prophet Jeremiah to announce a terrible punishment.

The most interesting part of the passage, however, is a short aside on this evil king’s good father: “He defended the cause of the poor and needy, and so all went well.

‘Is that not what it means to know me?’ declares the LORD” (v. 16, emphasis added).

Knowing God is inseparable from caring for the poor. Of course, we dare not reduce knowing God only to a concern for the needy as some radical theologians do. We meet God in prayer, Bible study, worship—in many ways. But if we do not share God’s passion to strengthen the poor, we simply do not know God in a biblical way.

I fear that many Christians today who think they are very orthodox are actually heretical at just this point. If Jeremiah 22:16 and 1 John 3:17 present one biblical criterion of genuine knowledge of God, what does God think about rich Christians who are living in countries that are 150 times as wealthy as the poorest one-fifth of the world’s countries, and yet give a mere one quarter of a tithe? Is that not heretical defiance of explicit biblical teaching? As we Christians examine our houses, cars, and family budgets, can we say our lifestyles are conformed to Christ rather than the world?

Now please do not misunderstand me. I am not advocating poverty—or worksrighteousness or Marxism.

You cannot earn your way into heaven by caring for the poor. The only way to stand justified before our holy God is to cling to the cross, trusting that God forgives our sins because of Jesus substitutionary atonement. Christians are justified by faith alone.

But, as John Calvin reminded us, if we do not do the things that the Bible says people with saving faith do, then we probably don’t have saving faith at all. And one of the clearest things the Bible tells us is that God wants his people to share His concern for the poor.

Nor am I advocating poverty or Marxism. I think creating wealth in just, sustainable ways is very good and urgently important. The unemployed need jobs. The Creator wants us to revel in the good earth given to us as a gift to treasure and develop.

The biblical teaching on poverty and possessions contains a wonderful subtlety and balance. There is a materialism that is godly. According to the Scriptures, the material world is not an illusion to ignore or an evil to escape. It is a good gift to embrace. It is a ring from our Beloved. The material world is so good that the Creator becomes flesh, so good that we await the resurrection of the body, so good that all creation stands on tiptoe eagerly anticipating the restoration of the groaning creation.

The Creator placed men and women in this fabulous world as stewards, uniquely shaped in the divine image to tend and care for God’s good garden. Tracing the steps of the Creator in science, technology, and the responsible production of more wealth is very good. Christians should rejoice in the way the modern world has been able to produce such an abundance that it would be possible—if we cared enough—for every person living today to have the opportunity for quality education and good health care—not to mention enough food, clothing, and housing.

The Bible, however, also issues a warning at just this point. Material abundance acquired justly is a good gift. But it is also dangerous. It is so easy to trust in our wealth rather than God (1 Tim. 6:9–10). It is so easy to treasure material things more than persons and God. We cannot serve God and mammon (Matt. 6:24). Strangely, growing wealth often hardens our hearts to the poor rather than sparking greater generosity.

Our world desperately needs a biblically balanced understanding of wealth. And also poverty! Some people want to blame the victims for their poverty. Don’t the poor create their own misery by laziness and sinful choices about sex and alcohol? Others think a wicked “system” is entirely to blame. The real world is far more complex.

Some people are poor because they make sinful choices. Others are poor because they believe a religious worldview that denies them dignity and discourages change.

(Hinduism’s caste system, for example, claims that both the rich and the poor should accept their fate so they will be better off in a future reincarnation.) In both situations, people need to hear the gospel, embrace a biblical worldview about the dignity of all, and experience the redeeming power of Christ.

Some people are poor because of natural disasters or inadequate tools and knowledge. They need Christians who will share emergency food and appropriate technology so they can produce enough to care for their families.

Still others are poor because of injustice in the way the courts work, the laws are made, the land has been divided, or opportunities for education and jobs are shared.

Earlier we saw the very explicit biblical teaching that sometimes people get rich by oppressing others. God wants justice for all. And justice, in the Bible, means that everyone has access to the capital so they can earn a living that enables them to participate freely as dignified members of their community.

Many evangelicals, however, do not understand justice–partly because they neglect the full biblical teaching about sin. Contrary to the Scriptures, some modern Christians see sin almost exclusively in personal terms. Sin means things like lying, stealing, drunkenness, and adultery. Now those things are wrong, terribly wrong. But so are racism and economic oppression.

The biblical understanding of sin emphasizes both personal and social sin. Amos announced God’s wrath both against those who trample the poor and those who commit sexual misconduct (2:6–7). Isaiah shouted God’s woe against those who deprive the poor of their land and homes and also those who fall into drunkenness (5:8–11, 22–23). In Amos 5, God explicitly condemned those who participate in an unjust legal system: You hate the one who reproves in court and despise him who tells the truth.

You trample on the poor and force him to give you grain.

Therefore, though you have built stone mansions, you will not live in them. . . .

For I know how many are your offenses and how great your sins.

You oppress the righteous and take bribes and you deprive the poor of justice in the courts. vv. 10–12

According to the Bible, laws themselves are sometimes unjust because wicked leaders write and manipulate them for their selfish advantage. The psalmist denounced those who ally themselves with wicked rulers who legislate “mischief by statute” (Ps. 94:20 RSV). God speaks bluntly about unfair systems: “Woe to those who make unjust laws, to those who issue oppressive decrees, to deprive the poor of their rights and withhold justice from the oppressed of my people” (Isa. 10:1–2). In fact, God is so angry with people who profit from unjust systems that he sometimes, as we have already seen, destroys them. Amos said the wealthy women of his day would be dragged out of the city with huge hooks in their noses. Why? “Hear this word, you cows . . . , you women who oppress the poor and crush the needy and say to your husbands, ‘Bring us some drinks!’”

(Amos 4:1–2).

According to the Bible, participating in unfair legal systems and unjust economic structures is wrong and displeasing to God. Robbing your employees of a fair wage is just as evil as robbing a bank.

An Indian bishop once told me a story that underlines the importance of understanding social sin. There used to be a mental institution in India, he said, which had a fascinating way of deciding whether inmates were well enough to go home. They would take a person over to a water tap, place a large water bucket under the tap, and fill the bucket with water. Then, leaving the tap on, they would give the person a spoon and say, “Please empty the bucket.” If the person started dipping the water out one spoonful at a time and never turned the tap off, they knew he was still crazy!

Too often Christians work at social problems one spoonful at a time. Too often we fail to ask how we can turn the tap off by changing legal systems and economic policies that hurt people. Of course we must lead individuals to Christ one person at a time. But understanding social sin helps us see more clearly how we can also improve society by reforming unfair systems and promoting justice.

How do we do that? You can start by reading a book or article that helps you understand current proposals to empower the poor. Then you can contact your Senator or Congressperson urging them to vote for good laws that strengthen the family and reward those who work responsibly. You may want to join an effective Christian organization that regularly provides updates on current affairs. (For suggestions on all these, see Just Generosity: A New Vision for Overcoming Poverty in America.)

Biblical people know that bread and justice for everyone is very important. They also know it is not enough. The poor of the world also need Jesus. They need to know that no matter how despised, trampled, and famished, the Creator of the world loves them so much that Jesus would gladly have died just for them. They need to know that right now, the risen Lord longs to forgive their sins, transform their broken lives, and welcome them to life eternal. They also need to know that this same God cares especially for the

poor, hates injustice, and now invites them to become coworkers in transforming society.

Think of what would happen if we shared this full biblical message with the more than one billion people who do not know either justice or Jesus. Of course, they won’t believe us unless we preach Good News to the poor the way Jesus did. He lived what he preached. He walked with the poor and met their material needs as he taught and preached. Think of the explosive power that would flow from a church today living as he lived. The poor of Jesus’ day never doubted that bringing Good News to the poor (Luke 4:18) was one central part of his mission. All they needed to do was look at what he said and did. But when today’s poor look at the church, they have strong reasons for doubting that we are serious about Jesus. Unless Christians today live sharing lifestyles that match God’s concern for the poor, our preaching will be weak and our faith heretical.

On the other hand, imagine the impact if even a quarter of today’s Christians began to care about justice for the poor the way the Bible says we should. The result would be stunning. Skeptics would reconsider Christianity. Revival would break out.

Untold numbers would come to Christ. Church planting would accelerate. Global tensions would decrease. The One who is both Creator and Redeemer would rejoice.

Why would that make God happy? Why does God care so much about the poor?

God does not love the poor one bit more than the rich. God cares equally about everyone.

But the God who has created every single human being in the divine image longs for wholeness, goodness and joy for every person. Poverty crushes not just the body, but also the mind and the spirit of billions of persons whom the Creator tenderly loves as his children made in his image.

Let’s ask Christ to change us so we share that love.

Ronald J. Sider (Ph.D, Yale) is Professor of Theology and Culture at Eastern Seminary in Philadelphia and President of Evangelicals for Social Action, a national organization of biblical Christians promoting justice for the poor here and abroad. You can contact him at <ronsider@esa-online.org>. Part of this article is adapted (with permission) from Chapters 8 and 9 of his Living Like Jesus (Baker, 1999). For his two major works on global and domestic poverty, see: Rich Christians in an Age of Hunger (Word, 1997) and Just Generosity: A New Vision for Overcoming Poverty in America (Baker, 1999).

Fifth Prize Award of $2,000

“CHRISTIANS SEEK LOVE, NOT HATE” Ronald J. Sider Ronald J. Sider (Ph.D., Yale) is a Professor of Theology, Holistic Ministry and Public Policy and Director of the Sider Center on Ministry and Public Policy at Palmer (formerly Eastern Baptist) Theological Seminary and President of Evangelicals for Social Action.

A widely known evangelical speaker and writer, Sider has spoken on six continents, published twenty-seven books and scores of articles. His Rich Christians in an Age of Hunger was recognized by Christianity Today as one of the 100 most influential religious books of the 20th century. Sider is publisher of PRISM magazine and a contributing editor of Christianity Today and Sojourners. He has lectured at scores of colleges and universities around the world, including Yale, Harvard, Princeton, and Oxford.

Evangelists have a brief message for Fred Phelps, the famous Kansas pastor who travels around the country with his big sign, “God Hates Fags.”

Apparently, he plans to visit Philadelphia this week.

We say: “Please stay home.”

Phelps’ sign and message are flatly unbiblical. God does not hate lesbians and homosexuals. God loves them. Perhaps the most oft-quoted text in the entire Bible makes that perfectly clear: “For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life” (John 3:16). God loves the world in all its pain and brokenness.

It is true that the Bible teaches that God’s will for sexual intercourse is within a life-long marriage covenant between a man and a woman. But God does not hate those who violate God’s standards (95 percent of whom are heterosexuals). God loves us even in our weakness and failure.

Nowhere is that clearer than in the story of Jesus and the woman caught in adultery. The harsh leaders who dragged her to Jesus wanted Jesus to condemn her to death. (That was the prevailing legal punishment.) But Jesus gently loved her, shaming her accusers into guiltily slipping away. Left alone with her, Jesus gently said: “Neither do I condemn you; go now and sin no more” (John 8:11). The moral norm was clear, but Jesus’ overflowing love was the central message.

So many contemporary Christians lack Jesus’ balance. Rather than shouting the unbiblical, heretical message that “God hates fags,” biblical Christians ought to take the lead in condemning gay-bashing. We ought to 24

be in the forefront of condemning and ending the physical violence that gay Americans still sometimes experience. We ought to lead the insistence that gay partners have the right to choose to inherit each other’s property, visit each other in the hospital, etc.

That does not mean that we must or should redefine marriage in public law. Virtually all civilizations for millennia have said marriage is between a man and a woman. There are still good reasons for that. But maintaining and defending that ancient wisdom should go hand in hand with an active love for gays and lesbians.

Interestingly, few evangelicals have done that better than Jerry Falwell’s former vice president, Ed Dobson. A headline in Christianity Today, evangelicalism’s most prestigious magazine, says it all: “Ed Dobson loves homosexuals.”

Dobson pastors the largest evangelical congregation in Grand Rapids, Mich. When a grieving mother asked Dobson to visit her son who was dying of AIDS, Dobson and his church cared for him until he died. Then Dobson visited the local AIDS Resource Center, asking how he could help.

At first, the director was shocked that the pastor of the largest evangelical church cared about people with AIDS. But Dobson’s church started working closely with people at the center and welcomed them to their church. Hate letters poured in, warning that the church would be “overrun with homosexuals.” Dobson replied the following Sunday in his sermon: “When I die, if someone stands up and says, ‘Ed Dobson loved homosexuals,’ then I will have accomplished something with my life.”

A little later, an astonishing editorial appeared in the local gay and lesbian newsletter. The article acknowledged that Dobson and his congregation considered gay practice to be sinful, but then thanked the church for their love and support.

Sadly, Dobson is right that Christians are “often better at hating than at loving.” But the Bible calls us to do just the reverse.

This week, as the gay Equality Forum holds its week of events, most evangelicals want dialogue and love, not attacks and hate. Precisely because we seek to hold fast to all biblical standards, we reject Fred Phelps’ hateful slogans.

25

EVANGELICALS AND STRUCTURAL INJUSTICE Why Don’t They Understand It and What Can Be Done?

Ronald J. Sider According to Chris Smith in his important book, American Evangelicalism,1 white American evangelicals care about the poor; in fact, they give money to help the poor and volunteer for local community organizations at least as frequently if not more frequently than Catholics, mainline Protestants, and liberal Christians.2 Furthermore, they vote in elections just as often as mainline Christians and more often than liberals and Catholics.3 At the same time, they have what Chris Smith calls a “personal influence strategy” for social change: “[White] American evangelicals are resolutely committed to a social-change strategy which maintains that the only truly effective way to change the world is one-individual-at-atime.”4 White evangelicals see themselves “as uniquely possessing a distinctively effective means of social change: working through personal relationships to allow God to transform human hearts from the inside-out so that all ensuing social change will be thorough and long-lasting.”5 In his research, Smith found that even the political engagement of evangelicals reflected this individualistic approach. “The primary evangelical strategy for political reform articulated [in their interviews] was to elect good Christians to political office,”6 not promote structural change such as campaign finance reform or alternative electoral approaches such as proportional representation.

In Divided by Faith, published two years later by Oxford University Press, Smith and his colleagues found the same thing in evangelical understanding of racial inequality. They used data from the General Social Survey to compare the different explanations of evangelicals and others for the fact that “on average blacks have worse jobs, income and housing than white people.”

Respondents had to choose between four possible explanations: 1) 2)

“Because most blacks have less inborn ability to learn?”

“Because most blacks just don’t have the motivation or will-power to pull themselves up out of poverty?”

3) “Because most blacks don’t have the chance for education . . .?”

4) “Mainly due to discrimination?”7

1

University of Chicago, 1998.

Ibid., pp. 38, 41.

3 Ibid. p. 41.

4 Ibid., p. 187.

5 Ibid., p. 188.

6 Ibid. p. 193.

7 Michael O. Emerson and Christian Smith, Divided by Faith: Evangelical Religion and the Problem of Race in America (New York: Oxford University Press, 2000), pp. 94-95.

2

1

Clearly the first two explanations (inability and lack of motivation) are personal and the last two (lack of education and discrimination) are structural.

In their responses, white conservative Protestants (a combined group of self-identified evangelicals and fundamentalists) put substantially more weight on the personal than the structural explanations. Almost two-thirds of white conservative Protestants but only one-half of other white Americans say black Americans are poor because they lack motivation. On the other hand, white conservative Protestants were less likely to point to lack of access to quality education or discrimination than other white Americans: only one-third of white conservative Protestants pointed to lack of access to education vs. almost one-half of other white Protestants.

And only one-fourth (vs. over one-third) pointed to discrimination as a cause.8 Obviously, we need a great deal more sophisticated sociological analysis before we will know with any precision the full extent of this individualistic, one-person-at-a-time approach to solving societal problems. But we already have enough evidence to say with considerable certainty that white evangelicals have a one-sided, individualistic approach to societal transformation that does not understand the importance of structures and the reality of systemic evil. As a result, among other things, evangelicals still are more likely in their response to global poverty to respond to immediate disasters and also to the need for community development than they are to engage in changing economic structures to reduce poverty.

Why is this the case? Again, we need a great deal of sophisticated study before we have solid answers to that question. But I want to venture some initial ideas—all with the clear understanding both that I offer only the most modest beginnings of an answer and also that there are many overlapping causal factors.

First, it may be that the fact that evangelicals frequently witness or hear about dramatic conversions that truly change broken people into transformed persons contributing to society leads evangelicals to emphasize the importance of personal conversion in a one-sided way.

(Please note: I think personal conversion is one important factor in societal transformation, but it needs to be accompanied by structural change.) Smith borrows the phrase the “miracle-motif” from Woodbridge, Noll, and Hatch to talk about this one-sidedly individualistic emphasis on conversion.9 In this view, social problems would disappear if everyone were converted to personal faith in Christ. The solution to great economic inequality is “not a more equitable restructuring of income distribution, but for rich people to come to Christ and then practice voluntary generosity.”10 Second, there is a very long history of individualism in evangelical thought and practice. It runs through the Protestant Reformation, Puritanism, the Free Church tradition, revivalism, pietism, and fundamentalism. Lacking Catholicism’s emphasis on the community and the

8

Ibid., p. 96.

Smith, American Evangelicalism, p. 190.

10 Ibid., p. 192.

9

2

common good, evangelicals historically have been highly individualistic in their understanding of the church, conversion—indeed, almost every aspect of Christian faith.

Third, the pioneering spirit of the American frontier where the strong-willed, daring individual was the hero certainly shaped American evangelicalism as nineteenth century Baptist, Methodist, and other churches swept west across the continent along with the settlers. If the individual has the proper courage and persistence, one can solve one’s own problems without governmental help.

Fourth, we ought at least to ask whether a certain kind of dispensational theology may contribute to evangelicalism’s hyper-individualism. For those dispensationalists who link the antiChrist with a powerful one-world government, every form of structural analysis of societal problems that would lead to structural changes implemented by government may lead to a fear that any substantial governmental intervention to solve social problems is just one step down a slippery slope toward the anti-Christ and one-world government.

Fifth, there is some evidence that political conservatism is linked to and is a strong predictor of individualistic explanations of economic equality between blacks and whites. In an article in the Journal of the Scientific Study of Religion, Hinojosa and Park show that those who are politically conservative are more likely to explain this inequality in terms of lack of motivation rather than lack of access to education and discrimination.11 The fact that a majority of white evangelicals for several decades have been closely linked to political conservatives probably has contributed to their failure to understand the structural causes of poverty.

Sixth, I suspect that the fact that a Platonic spiritualism that emphasizes the soul over the body has exerted a powerful influence in the evangelical world has also contributed to our problem. Historically, evangelicals have talked about “saving souls,” not saving the whole person the way Jesus did. If what really matters is the soul, then thinking about the way socio-economic, material structures and institutions shape people is hardly important.

Seventh, and closely related to the last point, evangelicals have largely defined the Gospel as the forgiveness of sins. Salvation means primarily asking God for forgiveness so that one can go to heaven when we die. I often say: if that is all the Gospel is, then it is a one-way ticket to heaven and we can live like hell until we get there. Defining the Gospel primarily as forgiveness of sins rather than, with Jesus, the Gospel of the kingdom, greatly heightens both the individualistic emphasis and the preoccupation with the soul in a Platonic sense.12 Finally, the fact that evangelical theology has been weak at a number of points where a more fully biblical perspective would have corrected our hyper-individualism is also surely a significant factor. Many evangelicals have a dreadfully weak doctrine of creation; an almost non-

11

Victor J. Hinojosa and Jerry Z. Park, “Religion and the Paradox of Racial Inequality Attitudes,” Journal of the Scientific Study of Religion, 43:2 (2004), pp. 229-238.

12 See my Good News and Good Works (Baker, 1999), Chapters 3, 4, especially pp. 76-79.

3

existent understanding of either the prophets’ or the New Testament’s understanding of social sin;13 and a weak grasp of the church as community.14 As you can see, I have only hinted at a number of issues that need much more exploration.

We need several doctoral dissertations in sociology, Christian ethics, and theology to explore this in depth.

Before moving to a discussion of how we can begin to correct the problem, I want to note two things about the attitude of evangelicals toward government. My first comment is that I do not think the failure of evangelicals to understand structural injustice and their widespread tendency to be suspicious of governmental intervention in society are identical issues. But they are clearly very closely linked. A clear grasp of structural injustice certainly strengthens the likelihood that one will favor some substantial governmental action to modify unjust systems.

And a strong libertarian orientation will strengthen one’s inclination to point to the individual rather than structural causes and solutions.

Second, I am not convinced that the widespread evangelical suspicion of governmental intervention is rooted in substantial theological convictions rather than more accidental historical factors. Certainly the insistence on limited government is rooted in crucial theological convictions (about the danger of unchecked power in a fallen world for example) but that does not in any way lead to a near libertarian view of government.15 We need a lot more careful study (both historical and systematic), but I will, until proven wrong, continue to argue that fundamental evangelical theological convictions are not only fully compatible with, but even demand, a substantial albeit limited role for government in the search for economic and social justice.

So how can we correct the problem?

The most obvious place to start is to seek a more biblically balanced theological framework that would correct the excessive individualism that shapes and supports the failure to grasp structural injustice. Several items would be important.

The first would be a deeper understanding and wider embrace of the biblical teaching on social sin or structural injustice. Since the first edition of my Rich Christians in an Age of Hunger, I have been writing about this biblical theme. The last two editions devote a full chapter to this topic. I won’t repeat that material here. But I think it is very important to see that the prophets clearly understand that sin is both personal and social and that they insist that unjust legal and economic structures displease God. In the New Testament, both the word cosmos (usually it means “the structures of the world organized against God’s designs”) and the category of the principalities and powers (which refers both to fallen angelic beings and the distorted socioeconomic-cultural structures of this world which they help to shape) contain a clear social ethic and an understanding of structural injustice.

13

th

See my Rich Christians in an Age of Hunger, 5 ed. (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2005), Chapter 6.

See my Scandal of the Evangelical Conscience (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2005), Chapter 4.

15 See my Scandal of Evangelical Politics (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2008), Chapter 4, especially pp. 88-91.

14

4

Second, evangelicals need a much deeper doctrine of creation. Humanity’s creation in the image of the triune God who is a community of persons, and our creation as male and female who need each other to be fulfilled, both underline the fact that persons are made for community. We are not, as John Locke seems to have imagined, primarily isolated individuals.

Designed for community, we find fulfillment only in social relationships that require wholesome structures.

Third, the biblical vision of salvation is not that of isolated individuals enjoying a personal relationship with God, but rather of communities of persons worshipping God and embracing God’s design for their common life. That is not to deny in any way that individuals must come to a personal faith in Christ. But it is to insist that at the heart of God’s plan of salvation in both testaments is a new people living out a new set of redeemed socio-economic relationships that reflect God’s intention for persons in community. Those who come to faith in Christ become part of Christ’s one body which is a new communal reality. It is impossible to embrace the New Testament understanding of salvation and have it only affect one’s personal relationship with God; it must also transform one’s socio-economic relationships with other sisters and brothers in the body of Christ as one submits to the other brothers and sisters in mutual accountability. A more biblical understanding of salvation and the church would go a long way to correcting the excessive individualism of typical American evangelicalism.

Here, I have only hinted at the kind of extensive biblical/theological inquiry that would make evangelical thinking both more biblical and less individualistic. Again, we need a number of sophisticated dissertations and books.

Finally, a comment on the social sciences in general and sociology in particular. I am certain that it was no accident that one of the earliest major pleas for evangelicals to return to their nineteenth century embrace of social justice came from evangelical sociologist David Moberg with his important book, Inasmuch: Christian Social Responsibility in Twentieth Century America (1965).16 I have not seen studies and I do not know how strong the departments of sociology are in evangelical colleges and universities, but I suspect stronger departments of sociology would help nurture better understanding of structural injustice. Certainly some more careful study of the comparative strength of sociology departments in evangelical, mainline Protestant, and Catholic colleges and universities—and the impact these departments have on the larger life of their respective communities—would be valuable.

I hope that in the next ten years, we see a great deal of study and writing—biblical, theological, and sociological—on the many topics that I have only most briefly and superficially flagged here. We need to know a lot more in detail both about the extent of the problem and the ways to correct it.

16

Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.

5

I end with one sign that perhaps we are making a bit of progress. I quote from For the Health of the Nation, the unanimously approved official public policy document of the National Association of Evangelicals which, at least theoretically, represents thirty million evangelicals. â&#x20AC;&#x153;From the Bible, experience, and social analysis, we learn that social problems arise and can be substantially corrected by both personal decisions and structural changes. On the one hand, personal sinful choices contribute significantly to destructive social problems (Prov. 6:9-11), and personal conversion through faith in Christ can transform broken persons into wholesome, productive citizens. On the other hand, unjust systems also help create social problems (Amos 5:10-15; Isa. 10:1-2) and wise structural change (for example legislation to strengthen marriage or increase economic opportunity for all) can improve society. Thus Christian civic engagement must seek to transform both individuals and institutions. While individuals transformed by the gospel change surrounding society, social institutions also shape individuals. While good laws encourage good behavior, bad laws and systems foster destructive action. Lasting social change requires both personal conversion and institutional renewal and reform.â&#x20AC;?17 I hope and pray for the day when all evangelicals, indeed all Christians, understand and live out that affirmation.

10/8/10

17

See Ronald J. Sider and Diane Knippers, eds., Toward an Evangelical Public Policy: Political Strategies for the Health of the Nation (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2005), p. 366.

6

EVALUATING THE FAITH-BASED INITIATIVE: IS CHARITABLE CHOICE GOOD PUBLIC POLICY?

The Sorensen Lecture, Yale Divinity School October 15, 2002

Ronald J. Sider

Professor of Theology and Culture, Eastern Baptist Theological Seminary President, Evangelicals for Social Action

1

Ever since both Presidential candidates Albert Gore and George W. Bush embraced the Charitable Choice legislation and pledged to place faith-based initiatives at the center of their administration’s efforts to overcome poverty, the role of religion in public life has enjoyed unusually frequent and intense public discussion. Whether at elite academic centers, top Washington think tanks, or the front and editorial pages of our leading newspapers, religion’s role in solving America’s social problems has been a central topic of unusually widespread, vigorous debate in the last three years.

I have chosen one important part of this debate–the legislation and policy popularly called Charitable Choice–as the topic for this lecture. First included in the 1996 Welfare Reform legislation and subsequently included in three other acts signed by President Clinton, Charitable Choice has become perhaps the most controversial item of the entire set of faith-based initiatives. Opponent Barry Lynn, director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, has suggested that Charitable Choice “may be the worst idea in modern political history.”1 Proponent James Skillen, director of the Center for Public Justice, on the other hand, argued in a lecture at Princeton last year that “if the principles of Charitable Choice are implemented successfully and remain in place over time, . . . the outcome could well be a fourth order of pluralism” that would replace the understanding of American pluralism dominant in the courts and public life for the last half century.2 Both friend and foe acknowledge that what started as a relatively obscure section of the 1996 Welfare Bill, introduced by freshman Senator John Ashcroft, has become an important part of contemporary political life and debate. Even Wendy Kaminer–who despises the entire Bush faith-based initiative, labelling the new White House Office on Faith-Based and Community Initiatives the “office of sectarian initiatives” in an article entitled “The Joy of Sects”–nonetheless grudgingly acknowledges that “Ashcroft’s remarkably successful initiative is creating unprecedented financial partnerships between church and state.”3 Penn political scientist John DiIulio, first head of President Bush’s new White House office, notes that five years ago, Charitable Choice was a “little-noticed landmark,” but today it is “much noticed [and] mainstream.”4 In this lecture, I want to outline the basic provisions of the Charitable Choice legislation; sketch its brief history; spell out the strongest arguments for and against it; discuss in detail the hiring safeguard; outline the setting in political philosophy where Charitable Choice is most at home; and, finally, conclude with some brief additional comments on why I support it.

The Central Provisions of Charitable Choice Just what is Charitable Choice? The fundamental purpose of the Charitable Choice section of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act of 1996 was to remove illegitimate restrictions on faith-based organizations so that when state and local governments using federal welfare block grant funds from the 1996 Welfare Bill chose to contract with non-governmental social service providers, all types of faith-based providers including very religious ones would experience a level playing field and enjoy full opportunity to compete with all other non-governmental providers on an equal basis. To protect both the non-establishment and free exercise clauses of the First Amendment’s protection of religious freedom, the Charitable Choice provisions provided that religious organizations could accept government funds to provide specified services “on the same basis as any other non-governmental provider without 1 “Charitable Choice: A Very Bad Idea,” Civil Rights Journal, Fall 2000, p. 43.

2 “E Pluribus Unum and Faith-Based Welfare Reform,” The Princeton Seminary Bulletin, pp. 287-88.

3 “The Joy of Sects,” The American Prospect, February 12, 2001, p. 32.

4 “Compassion in Truth and Action,” in E. J. Dionne, Jr., and Ming Hsu Chen, editors, Sacred Places, Civic Purposes: Should Government Help Faith-Based Charity? (Washington: Brookings Institution Press, 2001), p. 276.

2

impairing the religious character of such organizations, and without diminishing the religious freedom of beneficiaries.”5 To protect the autonomy of the religious organizations, the legislation specifically stated that an FBO receiving federal funding through the Welfare Bill retains “control over the definition, development, practice, and expression of its religious beliefs;” need not “alter its form of internal governance” or “remove religious art, icons, scripture or other symbols;” and retains the hiring safeguard specified in the 1964 Civil Rights Act that outlines the right of religious organizations to choose to hire only employees who share the organization’s religious beliefs.6 To protect the religious freedom of clients, the legislation stated that clients may refuse to participate in any religious practice and may request service from an alternative–secular if preferred–provider that is accessible to the client and of equal value. Furthermore, no participating FBO may discriminate against clients on the basis of religion. Finally, the legislation stipulates that “no funds provided directly” to FBOs may be used for “sectarian worship, instruction or proselytization.”7 (This stipulation does not apply in the case of indirect funding such as vouchers.) Finally, the Bush administration added a provision, based on the Supreme Court’s decision in Mitchell v. Helms (2000), that required FBOs receiving direct government funding to separate in time and place privately funded specifically religious activities from other government-funded activities.8 Probably the most innovative aspect of Charitable Choice is the clear abandonment of the principle that government funds dare not flow to so-called pervasively sectarian organizations lest government thereby “aid” religion. Charitable Choice follows the alternative strategy that the Supreme Court has come to adopt: to honor both the establishment and religious liberty requirements of the First Amendment, government should treat all potential partners the same, focusing not on whether they are religious, too religious, or secular, but on how well they can provide services. Charitable Choice focuses on outcomes and equal opportunity for all effective non-governmental providers rather than on the degree of religiosity of the service provider. The other striking development is the explicit provision that accepting government funds does not mean the loss of a religious organization’s right to choose to hire staff that share its religious beliefs.

It would be a fundamental mistake to suppose that the Charitable Choice legislation represents a radical break with the past.9 For decades, religious colleges and universities, religious hospitals, religious foster care agencies and many other religious organizations have received government funding.

Furthermore, a significant percentage of those organizations have been pervasively sectarian and used religious criterion in their hiring. In one study, for example, political scientist Stephen Monsma

5 Section 604a quoted in Stanley W. Carlson-Thies, Charitable Choice for Welfare Community Services (Washington: Center for Public Justice, 2000), p. 37.

6 Ibid., pp. 38-39.

7 Ibid.

8 Concerning grants with direct assistance, the controlling case is Mitchell v. Helms, 530 U.S. 793 (2000) (upholding federal program to supply educational equipment to k-12 schools, including religious schools). Mitchell is discussed in detail in Carl H. Esbeck, Senior Counsel to the Deputy Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice, Statement Before the United States House of Representatives Concerning Charitable Choice and the Community Solutions Act, Hearings Before the House Subcomm. on the Constitution, House Judiciary Committee, 107th Cong.

(June 12, 2001), reprinted at 16 Notre Dame J. of Law, Ethics & Pub. Policy 567 (2002).

9 For an excellent article placing Charitable Choice in the context of American welfare policy in the last one hundred-plus years, see Stanley Carlson-Thies, “Charitable Choice: Bringing Religion Back into American Welfare,” Journal of Policy History, Vol. 13, No. 1 (2001), pp. 109-32.

3

discovered that 28 percent of child service agencies that are pervasively religious receive over 60 percent of their funds from government.10 Monsma also points out, however, that fundamental ambiguity, contradiction and confusion exist in current law and practice. Although supposedly the reigning principle is "no aid to pervasively sectarian organizations," in fact such organizations routinely receive large amounts of government funding, and the courts may, or may not, challenge such partnerships. But such disjunctions between theory and practice leave organizations--and government--vulnerable. Furthermore, there is little consistency concerning religious hiring by religious organizations that receive government funds. Outside of government funds, religious organizations clearly are at liberty to take faith into account in staffing decisions. Some federal funding laws (e.g., the AmeriCorps legislation) do require all grantees to agree not to hire on a religious basis, but many other funding laws are silent about employment and some explicitly maintain the hiring right for religious organizations. On the other hand, some federal agencies require all religious organizations that seek funds to abandon their right to hire on a religious basis--even though the pertinent statutes do not contain that requirement. Charitable Choice, if upheld by the Supreme Court, would clarify what is currently a confused, contradictory situation.

A Brief History11 The story of how this piece of legislation entered American public life is fascinating. In the early 1990's, Carl Esbeck, a law professor at the University of Missouri Law School, concerned about the secularizing effects of government funding, agreed to do a paper on how religious organizations are regulated when they receive government funds. When he presented his paper at a conference in February 1995, Esbeck decided to enliven his lecture by offering draft legislation to correct problems he had discovered. Soon after the conference, Esbeck sent his paper and draft legislation to a recent graduate, Annie Billings who, just weeks before, had joined the staff of freshman Republican Senator John Ashcroft, an Assemblies of God layman from Missouri. As governor, Ashcroft had noted that FBOs seemed to do a better job so one day in the spring of 1995 as he was working on the welfare bill, Ashcroft asked his staff how the new bill might encourage more FBOs to provide welfare services. When Billings shared Esbeck’s draft legislation, Ashcroft decided to try to incorporate it in the legislation, eventually persuading Majority Leader Senator Dole to include it in the Senate bill. When the bill went to the HouseSenate Conference Committee in the fall of 1995, Billings had to work hard to persuade Republican members of the House, but they eventually accepted the Charitable Choice provision. Clinton, however, vetoed the entire bill at Christmas–and a similar bill in the spring of ‘96. Then in the summer of ‘96, Congress again passed the welfare bill with Charitable Choice in it and Clinton signed it into law.

Perhaps the most amazing thing in retrospect is that the Charitable Choice provisions faced as little opposition as it did in ‘95 and ‘96. A substantial coalition of liberal civil rights groups (including the ACLU and Americans United) did object,12 urging that Charitable Choice violated the separation of church and state, but the attention of the Congress and the country was elsewhere, on the dramatic changes in welfare policy. Charitable Choice, Annie Billings told me, was “under the radar screen most of 10 Stephen V. Monsma, When Sacred and Secular Mix: Religious Nonprofit Organizations and Public Money (Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield, 1996), p. 78 (see all of pp. 70ff).

11 Based in part on personal interviews with Carl Esbeck (May 11, 2002) and Annie Billings White (June 18, 2002). See also Julie A. Segal’s chapter, “A ‘Holy Mistaken Zeal’: The Legislative History and Future of Charitable Choice,” in Derek Davis and Barry Hankins, eds., Welfare Reform and Faith-Based Organiztions (Waco: J. M. Dawson Institute, 1999), pp. 9-27.

12 A “Working Group for Religious Freedom in Social Services” lobbied against and distributed a legislative briefing packet against Charitable Choice. This group included: ACLU, AJC, Americans United, Anti-Defamation League, Baptist Joint Committee, PFAW, PC (USA), RAC of Reform Judaism, etc.

4

the time. . . .” A Senator did move to strike out the Charitable Choice provisions in the summer of ‘96, but after just a few minutes of debate, the Senate voted 67-32 to retain Charitable Choice. Many Democrats including liberal Senator Wellstone voted to keep it in the bill. A law professor, his young student and a freshman Senator had succeeded in passing legislation that just five years later would seem far more important and become very controversial.

Not until 2001, however, did Charitable Choice become highly partisan. Democratic President Clinton signed not only the ‘96 welfare bill with Charitable Choice in it, but also three other bills that included very similar Charitable Choice provisions: the Welfare-to-Work Program in 1997; the Community Services Block Grant in 1998; and the substance abuse legislation (SAMHSA) in 2000. The situation changed rapidly, however, when Republican George W. Bush became President in January, 2001, and promptly launched a very high profile new White House Office on Faith-Based and Community Initiatives. When the Republican leaders of the House introduced legislation expanding the provisions of Charitable Choice to a much broader range of federal funding streams, most Democrats opposed the bill, called HR-7. Use of government funds for what was alleged to be “religious discrimination” in hiring was the most successful objection. Unlike the church-state argument in 19951996, the “discrimination” argument proved politically effective. HR-7 passed the House on largely partisan grounds with only fifteen Democrats voting for it, and the new Democratic majority in the Senate quickly made it clear they would not accept new legislation to expand Charitable Choice. As a result, Republican Senator Santorum and Democratic Senator Lieberman drafted a compromise bill (called the CARE Act) that embraced some of President Bush’s faith-based proposals but was silent on the hiring safeguard. The present Congress is very unlikely to include Charitable Choice provisions in any new legislation beyond the four areas where it is currently law.

It is probable, however, that the most significant developments with regard to Charitable Choice are now occurring inside the Bush administration rather than in Congress. In August 2001, the new White House office issued its first annual report on the faith-based initiative. Entitled Unlevel Playing Field: Barriers to Participation by Faith-Based and Community Organizations in Federal Social Service Programs, this report pointed out that with one limited exception, “Charitable Choice has been essentially ignored by federal administrators” (p.19). That is now changing. President Bush has established five offices on faith-based initiatives in five key federal departments to transform the federal bureaucracy and its regulations to remove barriers to FBOs. Two studies by Amy Sherman (one completed in 2000 and the second in 2002) show that the number of FBOs accessing federal funds under Charitable Choice guidelines is growing very rapidly.13

The Best Case for and Against14 Proponents argue that Charitable Choice serves the poor and ends religious discrimination in a way that is constitutional, protecting both FBOs’ religious identity and beneficiaries’ religious freedom.

Almost everyone agrees that the levels of widespread poverty and social brokenness, especially at the heart of our great cities, in the richest nation in human history, is both a moral disgrace and a threat to democracy. In many of the most desperate communities, houses of worship and their social service programs are among the very few remaining functional institutions. Furthermore, some of the religious 13 She found 84 FBO/government partnerships governed by Charitable Choice legislation in 2000 and 726 two years later. See her The Growing Impact of Charitable Choice (Washington: Center for Public Justice, 2000) and Amy L. Sherman, Collaborations Catalogue: A Report on Charitable Choice Implementation in 15 States (Hudson Institute, 2002).

14 One of the better summaries of both views is in In Good Faith: A Dialogue on Government Funding of Faith-Based Social Services, available from the Feinstein Center for American Jewish History, Temple University, 117 S. 17th Street, Suite 1010, Philadelphia, PA 19103, pp. 11-15.

5

social service programs in the most desperate communities appear to be succeeding where almost everything else has failed.15 In addition, many of these highly successful FBOs believe that a central key to their success is precisely the strong faith component in their programs. Although there is a vast amount of research proving that religious faith contributes significantly to physical and emotional well-being,16 sophisticated, quantitative social science research has yet to prove two more specific claims: that deeply faith-based programs work better than other programs and that faith is a key causal factor in that success.

If and when research does substantiate these claims, then surely all who care about reducing poverty and social brokenness should embrace this highly promising solution.

Second, Charitable Choice reduces religious discrimination. For decades, billions of government dollars have flowed regularly to both secular (government and non-government) and religiously affiliated providers like Catholic Charities, Lutheran Services of America and the Jewish Federations. On the other hand, FBOs that visibly integrated substantial faith components in their social service programs (those considered “pervasively sectarian”) were often considered ineligible. But all of these different types of organizations are grounded in what is finally a religious worldview. “Secular” organizations are grounded in, and at least implicitly teach, a naturalistic worldview that claims that since nothing exists except the natural order, persons are essentially complex socio-economic material machines and therefore all we need to solve social problems is the best of the medical and social sciences. Faith-related programs that have religiously-motivated staff but no religious content in their social program seem to embrace a deistic worldview that acknowledges the Creator, but considers religious faith irrelevant for solving social problems. Deeply religious theistic providers, on the other hand, whether Christian, Jewish or Muslim, believe that persons are body-soul unities and that a right relationship with God contributes significantly to solving social problems. Spiritual transformation, they believe, is an integral part of their ability to achieve the public goods desired by government. Is it not blatant religious discrimination for government to fund only naturalistic and deistic providers and refuse to fund theistic programs? In our kind of society where government funds a large number of private social service providers, it is simply impossible for government to implement the “no aid to pervasively sectarian organizations” principle without religious discrimination. If government tried to implement this principle consistently in the funding of social services, it would end up funding almost exclusively the religion of deism or the quasi-religion of philosophical naturalism.

Charitable Choice focuses on outcomes, on whether a social service provider produces specific public goods such as good job training or effective drug rehabilitation, not on the degree of religiosity in the program. Thus it removes government from the entangling and discriminatory task of deciding how religious an organization is and then favoring the more secular. Under Charitable Choice, government neutrality becomes the norm, because government no longer is biased against some and in favor of other religious providers, but rather simply offers a level playing field, choosing providers on the basis of their effectiveness in providing specified public goods.

Third, Charitable Choice protects both the religious integrity of FBOs and the religious liberty of beneficiaries. Charitable Choice legislation contains powerful protections against the ever-present danger of creeping secularization produced by government funding and regulations. At the same time, clients may demand a secular provider and if they freely choose a religious provider they may opt out of specific religious activities (which in any case dare not be funded by government).

It is likely that some case concerning Charitable Choice will eventually end up before the Supreme Court, allowing the court to reach a definitive decision on whether this historic legislation is 15 “Faith-based programs can enjoy success where secular programs have failed.” John J. DiIulio, Jr., in a speech to the National Institute of Justice, May 4, 2002, p. 21.

16 Byron Johnson, Objective Hope: Assessing the Effectiveness of Faith-Based Organizations: A Review of the Literature (University of Pennsylvania Center for Research on Religion and Urban Civil Society, 2002).

6

constitutional. Meanwhile, for more than a decade, the court has increasingly turned away from a strict separationist view that no government money may flow to deeply religious organizations.17 Many believe this principle hinders free exercise, makes government programs engines of secularization, and is impossible to implement without enormous intrusion and thus excessive entanglement.18 In Mitchell v.

Helms (2000), the Supreme Court did not use the pervasively religious criterion as the determining factor in whether a religious organization may receive government funds to provide services. A number of cases including Rosenberger v. Rector (1999), and the 2002 Zelman case on Cleveland’s voucher program all suggest that the present court will probably uphold Charitable Choice.19 What is the case against Charitable Choice?

Opponents of Charitable Choice believe it violates the Establishment Clause, promotes governmentfunded hiring discrimination, jeopardizes clients’ religious freedom and endangers the autonomy and vitality of religious liberty.

By allowing direct grants for social programs to houses of worship or social service providers that integrate strong faith components into their programs, government inevitably–and unconstitutionally–advances religion.

Second, the hiring safeguard means that religious organizations may use government funds to “discriminate” in their hiring activities against certain people on the basis of religious belief. In the case of private funds, religious organizations should enjoy this privilege, but not in the case of government funds.

Third, in practice Charitable Choice will endanger the religious freedom of clients. In theory, they have the right to demand a secular provider or to opt out of religious activities, but in practice, clients may feel too weak to demand their rights and become a captive audience for proselytizing.

Finally, Charitable Choice endangers the autonomy and vitality of religious organizations. As government rightly demands accountability for its funds, there will be excessive entanglement of church and state. Houses of worship receiving government grants may fear to use their prophetic voice to challenge misguided government policies. Different houses of worship may engage in politically messy, polarizing competition with other houses of worship for grants. Members of religious congregations may decide that private giving is not needed when government funds arrive. Government regulations may subtly secularize programs or encourage rigid bureaucratic responses to persons rather than flexible person-centered approaches.20

The Hiring Safeguard

17 See Marc D. Stern, “Charitable Choice: The Law as It Is and May Be,” in Andrew Walsh, ed., Can Charitable Choice Work? (Hartford: The Leonard E. Greenberg Center, 2001), pp. 156ff, esp. pp. 170-73; and Carl H. Esbeck, “The Neutral Treatment of Religion and Faith-Based Social Service Providers: Charitable Choice and Its Critics,” in Davis and Hankins, eds., Welfare Reform, pp. 173ff.

18 Esbeck, in Welfare Reform, pp. 175-76.

19 For the opposite argument, see Alan Brownstein’s “Constitutional Questions about Charitable Choice,” in Davis and Hankins, eds., Welfare Reform, pp. 219ff.

20 See for example, Melissa Rogers, “The Wrong Way to Do Right: Charitable Choice and Churches,” in Davis and Hankins, eds.,Welfare Reform, pp. 73-76; and Derek Davis, “Right Motive, Wrong Method: Thoughts on the Constitutionality of Charitable Choice,” in Davis and Hankins, eds., Welfare Reform, pp. 267ff; Elena Matsui and Joseph Chuman, “The Case Against Charitable Choice,” The Humanist, January/February 2001, pp. 31-33.

7

One of the most important and politically explosive objections to Charitable Choice has been the charge of “hiring discrimination” using government funds. Certainly in the last two years, this has become perhaps the most frequent and most politically effective objection to Charitable Choice. In fact, the vast majority of the American people agree with this objection. A Pew poll in the spring of 2001 discovered that 78 percent of Americans reject the idea that religious groups that use government funds should be allowed to hire “only those who share their religious beliefs.”21 Seventy percent of Republicans felt the same way. So did 65 percent of white evangelical Protestants.22 The hiring safeguard is at the heart of Charitable Choice’s attempt to protect the religious identity of FBOs that partner with government. If receiving government funds means that an evangelical foster care agency must hire wiccans and Planned Parenthood must hire pro-life activists, neither organization can retain its identity and mission.

Section 702 of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act explicitly safeguards the right of religious organizations to use religious criteria in hiring employees with religious duties. In 1972, Congress expanded this right to cover all employees of religious organizations. In 1987, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously declared this provision constitutional. Nor is it only at the federal level that this right of religious organizations is recognized; most state and local generally applicable civil rights codes include the same hiring safeguard. With one exception, federal and state court decisions have ruled that this hiring right is not lost when a religious organization receives government funds.23 I think the courts are right and the large majority in the Pew poll are wrong for at least the following eight reasons.24 1. A religious organization’s decision to hire staff who share its religious beliefs and practices is not intolerant discrimination but a good, positive act of freedom.

In a free society enjoying freedom of association, a wide variety of organizations rightly are free to select staff who share their core commitments. Environmental organizations, feminist groups, unions, etc., all should be free to choose only staff who agree with their agenda.

Nor should this right disappear if governments choose to request that these private organizations perform some desired tasks. Planned Parenthood, for example, should not lose its right not to hire pro-life staff simply because it has a government contract. To deny this right to religious organizations would be intolerant discrimination, not the promotion of an open, free society.25

21 Faith-Based Funding Backed, But Church-State Doubts Abound, p. 11; http://pewforum.org/events/0410/report/1.php3. Obviously, the wording of a question greatly affects the response.

Probably there would have been a quite different response if the question had been put as follows: “Do you think a religious organization should lose its constitutional and legal right to hire people on a religious basis simply because the government has decided that the organization serves people so well that it wants to give it some government money?”

22 Ibid.

23 Dodge v. Salvation Army (No. 588-0353, S.D. Miss. 1989) is the exception. See Carl H. Esbeck’s (then Senior Counsel to the Deputy Attorney General) detailed response (not yet published) to Question 13 from the Senate Judiciary Committee. Among the seven cases cited, see especially Hall v. Baptist Memorial Health Care Corp (6th Cir. 2000) and Siegel v. Truett-McConnell College (11th Cir. 1995) where federal district courts upheld the hiring exemption on religious grounds even though the FBOs received substantial government funding.

24 In the following section, I am adapting slightly part of a recent article: “The Case for ‘Discrimination’,” First Things, May, 2002, pp. 19-22.

25 See, for example, Nathan J. Diament, “A Slander Against our Sacred Institution,” The Washington Post, May 28, 2001, p. A23.

8

It is confusion to equate this positive good with the evil of discrimination on the basis of things like race or disability. Whether or not one thinks that religion is a medieval superstition that rational folk ought to abandon or a true and good contributor to societal well-being, all who believe in religious freedom should insist that it is a good thing to be treasured and protected by law, not a bad thing to be restricted, for all religious organizations to have full freedom to hire staff who share their religious beliefs.

2. The ability to choose staff who share a religious organization’s core beliefs is essential if that organization wishes to retain its basic identity.

As Justice William Brennan said in Corporation of the Presiding Bishop v. Amos (1987) (the unanimous Supreme Court decision upholding the constitutionality of the hiring safeguard on religious grounds): “Determining that certain activities are in furtherance of an organization’s religious mission and that only those committed to that mission should conduct them, is thus a means by which a religious community defines itself.” A Jewish organization forced to hire substantial numbers of Baptist staffers will not long remain a significantly Jewish organization.26 Having staff that share a religious organization’s essential religious beliefs profoundly shapes the identity of an organization in a wide range of ways. Shared motivation, common values, a sense of community and unity of purpose, shared experiences of prayer and worship (even if they are all outside work time in the organization) all contribute to an esprit de corps and shared organizational vision. As law professor Ira C. Lupu said in testimony before a House subcommittee (June 7, 2001), “ the sense of religious community and spirit on which success of the group’ s efforts depend “ may be hampered if they are forced to hire those who do not share the organization’s beliefs.

This is important even when, for example, a faith-centered organization chooses to separate by location or time (and fund with private money)sectarian worship, instruction and proselytization in a program in order to receive direct government grants. This is true for several reasons.

First, religious activities may be important to the social service program, even though they are voluntary, privately funded and segregated from “secular” government-funded activities. In such programs, holding certain religious beliefs and practices are legitimate qualifications for a staff position, equally as valid as having the right skills and experience.

Second, forced religious diversity can have the effect of stifling religious expression of staff within the agency, creating a climate of fear of offending other staff with religious speech or actions.

Since personal faith is very important to many who choose to work in a religious organization, such a climate can diminish staff motivation and effectiveness. Forced religious diversity can sap a program's spiritual vitality and lead toward its secularization.

Third, staff often play multiple roles in small organizations–for example, an agency might seek someone as half-time youth minister and half-time social worker for their youth mentoring program.

Implementing a policy in which religion could be considered as a factor in hiring for some job duties but not others within the same position would lead to unnecessarily complicated and impermissibly entangling regulations.

Similar reasons show why any “grandfathering” compromise that accepts current staff selected on a religious basis but prohibits future staff selection on that basis is inadequate. It merely delays a bit the subversion of organizational identity. (If, as in the 1993 National and Community Service 26 See Jeffrey Rosen, “Why the Catholic Church Shouldn’t Have to Hire Gays - Religious Rights,” The New Republic, February 26, 2001, pp. 16-17.

9

Trust Act (which governs AmeriCorps), the prohibition applies only to a particular program, this problem is reduced, but by no means eliminated.)

3. Just because a religious organization accepts some federal funds, it (like other non-profits) does not cease to exist as an independent, autonomous entity and become an arm or agent of the government.

In an article in The American Prospect, Wendy Kaminer argues that “private associations must, of course, give up private associational rights when they accept government support, and become, in part, de facto public entities.”27 But surely Kaminer is wrong.

Law28, precedents, and common sense all argue that a private organization that accepts some government funds still retains its separate identity. This is clearly seen in such cases as colleges and universities receiving government funding, scholars engaging in federally subsidized research, and artists and artistic organizations funded by the Natonal Endowment for the Arts. All of these receive government funding; all maintain their autonomy and freedom of action. They maintain their academic or artistic freedom. They do not become agents of government. Similarly, a religious organization that receives government funds to provide a public service which we as a society have decided is for the public good must be free to maintain its identity and autonomy, and not be co-opted by government.

Among other things this means it must retain its right to use religious criteria in making hiring decisions.

4. In American society today, permitting religious organizations that receive government money to provide social services the freedom to hire staff on the basis of religious belief and practice is the only way to avoid discrimination and governmental preference of one religious view over another.

Today, vast sums of government money flow to many different types of non-governmental social service providers. Some of these providers include religious content (paid for by private money) in their programs and some do not. Some choose staff on the basis of religious belief and some do not.

Using the typology of different types of faith-based organizations recently published by the Working Group on Human Needs and Faith-Based and Community Initiatives on which I served and which was chaired by former Democratic Senator Harris Wofford helps explain this point.

Programs called “faith-saturated” and “faith-centered” both include substantial religious content in their programs and hire (primarily or entirely) employees who share their beliefs--precisely because their religious beliefs tell them that persons are spiritual as well as material beings and therefore the best results follow when spiritual and material transformation are combined. Programs called “faith-related,” “faith-background” and “secular” do not include significant religious content in their program or consider religious belief in their staffing because their religious beliefs/worldview tell them that all that is needed to correct dysfunctional social behavior and social problems is socio-economic, material transformation.

All these providers, not just the first two, are grounded in an explicit or implicit worldview or religious perspective. Secular providers at least implicitly work within a naturalistic worldview (nothing exists except the natural world) which functions as a religious perspective. Functionally, faith-related and faith-background providers operate with deistic religious beliefs (God exists but never intervenes in the natural world of cause and effect). Naturalism and deism, however, are just as much particular religious worldviews as the historic theism that undergirds most faith-saturated and faith-centered programs.

27 “The Joy of Sects,” The American Prospect, February 12, 2001, p. 33.

28 A number of court cases reject the idea that the receipt of government funding at a private organization renders that organization’s action state action; e.g., Blum v. Yaretsky, 457 US. 991 (1982); Rendell-Baker v. Kohn (457 US. 830 (1982).

10

Obviously, if government only funds some of these private providers (i.e., the naturalistic and deistic ones which do not explicitly use religious criteria for staff), government clearly discriminates among religions. First it preferences some types of religious providers over others because of their more “acceptable”religious views--surely an establishment of religion. And second, it denies some beneficiaries the opportunity of having government-funded social services which work within their religious framework while offering that opportunity to others–an obstruction of free exercise..

5. Refusing government funds to religious social service providers that choose staff on the basis of religious belief will hurt the poor.

In an op-ed. (The Wall Street Journal, 7/23/01), Andrew Young asked: “Why should the [religious] organizations that are best at serving the needy be excluded from even applying for government funding?” Urging Senate passage of a bill expanding Charitable Choice, Young warned opponents not to play politics with the needy.

Young’s premises of course may be wrong. His argument assumes that the poor need both moral/spiritual as well as material transformation and also that faith-based organizations often are more effective. We do not yet have extensive, sophisticated, comparative quantitative studies demonstrating that (other things being equal) intensely faith-based providers produce better or poorer results. (Obviously we urgently need such comparative quantitative studies to see which types of programs actually produce better results-i.e., more people off drugs, completing job training and staying employed, etc.). A lot of anecdotal data, however, clearly suggest that thoroughly faith-based programs are producing good outcomes in contexts where almost nothing else seems to work–a finding that fits with the vast number of quantitative studies that have demonstrated that faith contributes positively to emotional and physical well-being.29 Furthermore, these success stories often come from FBOs which are very certain that the religious components in their program are a crucial cause of their success. If they are right, then refusing to fund such agencies means denying many of the most needy citizens the best available help.

6. Since government is now asking religious groups to provide more social services, government should respect the integrity of those organizations.

Religious organizations have been caring for the poor and needy for millennia. They will continue to do so regardless of what government says, or funds. They do not need government money to do what their mission demands.

Today, however, federal, state and local governments are asking faith-based groups to provide more social services and offering some funds so they can expand what they are doing--partly because the available (still largely anecdotal) data suggest that FBOs often produce better results. Furthermore, religious institutions are frequently almost the only still-functioning institutions in very desperate neighborhoods. If government wants this additional help, it should respect and preserve the integrity of FBOs rather than destroying the very thing that makes them especially effective. The right to hire employees that share the religious body’s beliefs is the single most important way to do that.

7. Removing the right of religious organizations to hire staff on the basis of religious belief would require drastic, widespread change in current practice.

Today, religious colleges and universities, religious hospitals, religious foster care agencies and many other religious organizations receive some government funding to assist in a part of 29

See above, n. 16.

11

their educational, medical and social services. Many of these organizations consider the existing, recognized hiring safeguard to be absolutely essential for any continuing provision of social services with government support. Those who oppose the hiring protection in Charitable Choice, if they are consistent, will seek to overturn and outlaw a vast range of situations where government currently cooperates with faith-based organizations. Hopefully, such a radical disruption of education, health care and social services will not occur.

8. Finally, the practical impact of the hiring safeguard will not entail significant harm.

This last argument is fundamentally different from the previous seven. Thus far, I have argued that as a matter of principle, religious freedom is such a fundamental right that it ought to prevail even if on occasion embracing that overriding principle has the secondary effect of, for example, reducing the number of job opportunities for a particular group. For example, the Catholic Church must, as a matter of principle, be free to live out its religious belief (which I do not share) that only men should be priests, even though that has the effect of (slightly) reducing the number of job possibilities for women.

My last point offers an argument, not about principle, but about practical effect. The recent suggestion that extending the hiring safeguard would in practice mean that African-Americans or gay Americans would suffer a substantive loss of job opportunities is simply wrong.

There is a certain tension between two treasured values: on the one hand, protecting the religious freedom and identity of FBOs as they expand their effective services to the most needy; on the other, our societyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s conviction that except in the case of a narrow range of specific situations, employers should not hire on the basis of religion.

Would the hiring safeguard, even if Charitable Choice was substantially expanded to other government funding streams, really result in job deprivation? Hardly at all.

First, we are talking about a small percentage of the total jobs in the society. Second, probably the majority of FBOs (e.g., most Catholic, Jewish and Mainline Protestant agencies) pay almost no attention to the religious beliefs of staff. Third, in the case of those evangelical Christian, Orthodox Jewish and Muslim FBOs that do, virtually all the different religious groups have their own FBOs which chose staff who share their own beliefs.

For very understandable historical reasons, African-Americans have been concerned that racial discrimination might find cover under the hiring safeguard for religious organizations. This is extremely unlikely to happen. For one thing, federal law, and parallel laws in all fifty states, explicitly forbid discrimination on the basis of race. The Charitable Choice legislation was enacted with those laws in mind and in no way altered them. Furthermore, FBOs working in minority communities are run either by people of the same racial group or by whites who have been at the forefront of fighting racial prejudice.

What about sexual orientation? Many FBOs do not ask about or select staff on the basis of sexual orientation. (The Salvation Army, for example, very explicitly does not.) It is true that a number of FBOs do say that staff should not be sexually active outside marriage. But is that really so terribleâ&#x20AC;&#x201C;especially for FBOs working to overcome poverty in a society where a child growing up in a single-parent household is eleven times more likely to be persistently poor than a child growing up in a two-parent family?

Even if the hiring safeguard in Charitable Choice were expanded to a lot more government funding streams, openly sexually active gay Americans would face extremely little job deprivation. The number in that group is very small and the number of jobs affected is a minuscule fraction of the total number of jobs. Gay FBOs exist and others can be formed that choose to hire those who share that ethical/religious belief. Surely the well-educated gay community does not want to block an enormously 12

promising way to overcome poverty and social brokenness for millions of desperate Americans to avoid what in practice would at worst mean only the loss of a handful of possible jobs.

Charitable Choice’s Intellectual Home Charitable Choice makes most sense within a political philosophy that affirms structural or institutional pluralism and understands that religion (at least some prominent expressions of religion) is very much a public, not just a personal private activity.30 Catholic social teaching (especially the principle of subsidiarity) and the Dutch Calvinist tradition of Abraham Kuyper more easily support Charitable Choice than the Lockean tradition of Anglo-American liberalism. The Lockean tradition tends to emphasize the individual and the state, placing less importance on a range of intermediary institutions including civil society.

Neither the libertarian nor the statist versions of the liberal tradition fit well with Charitable Choice. Charitable Choice by no means assumes with libertarians that government has no responsibility for overcoming poverty and other social problems and that government can and should turn these tasks over to private groups and houses of worship. Charitable Choice assumes an important, ongoing role of government in both funding and regulating society’s social services. On the other hand, Charitable Choice rejects any statist notion that government should solve all social problems and that if government partners with other institutions in alleviating social ills, those other institutions become de facto and/or de iure arms of government. Rather Charitable Choice assumes that there can be a genuine partnership between government and other institutions in society–a partnership in which those other institutions retain their own identity and independence even as they cooperate with (and receive funding from) government in delivering specific public goods such as job training or drug rehabilitation.

Nor does Charitable Choice fit well with an Enlightenment, Jeffersonian understanding of religion as a personal private affair that has no proper role in public life. To a significant degree, the strict separationist views and court decisions of the last few decades assume, as Chief Justice Burger said in Lemon v. Kurtzman, that the heart of religion is private expression. Or as Baptist separationist Derek Davis has said: “It is the private expression of religion in private spheres that is the heart of religion.”31 Historic Christianity, Judaism and Islam, however, understand religious faith to apply to all of life, both “public” and “private.” For Christians who believe that Christ is Lord of all, it is simply impossible to restrict religious belief and practice to some private sphere. One’s religious beliefs shape how you run schools and social service agencies. If government, as it has often done in the past several decades, only funds social service providers that are essentially secular, it not only is biased toward the religious worldviews of naturalism or deism, but also discriminates against historic Christian faith that demands a public expression of religious belief.

Catholic social teaching and Dutch Kupyerianism provide a better home for Charitable Choice.

The Catholic principle of subsidiarity affirms both an important role for the state, but also a crucial role for other societal institutions. Social problems should be dealt with at as local a level as can adequately solve the problem. And when government rightly plays a role, it must make sure that it does not undermine but rather strengthens and preserves the identity of the other important societal institutions–family, business, schools, religious institutions, voluntary associations, etc. Abraham 30 I am especially indebted in this section to unpublished papers by Stephen Monsma (“Myths, Lies and Soundbites: Reactions to President Bush’s Faith-Based Initiative”–the “Henry Lecture” at Calvin College on April 29, 2002) and Timothy Sherratt (“Government and Faith-Based Organizations” presented at Collegium Conversations on Public Policy in Washington, May 10-11, 2002).

31 Quoted in Sherratt, Ibid., p. 4.

13

Kuyper’s political philosophy with its doctrine of sphere sovereignty similarly emphasized the crucial character and independence of the non-governmental institutions in society.

That is the kind of political philosophy where Charitable Choice is at home. Houses of worship and private faith-based organizations have their own independence and identity. They may choose to partner with government but do not thereby abandon their freedom, independence and unique identity.

They remain free to understand human nature and define social problems and solutions from their unique religious perspective and they retain the freedom to hire staff that share the same vision. Political scientist Stephen Monsma likes the word “partnership” to describe the kind of “church-state” relationship assumed

by Charitable Choice because “both partners work together to achieve a common goal, with neither partner dominating the other, and each making an independent contribution to meeting the public good.”32 I believe James Skillen’s discussion, in his Princeton lecture last year, where he describes four orders of pluralism in American history, can further clarify this discussion of where Charitable Choice most easily finds its home.33 The first order of pluralism runs from 1787 to about 1830. With the Bill of Rights in 1787, the federal government prohibited any governmental establishment of religion at the national level, but for several decades states still maintained established religions.

As the states followed the federal government in rejecting established churches (Massachusetts being the last in the 1830's), the second order of pluralism emerged. Partly to inculcate a common morality to unify the nation, public schools emerged, reading the Bible and teaching a generally Protestant/somewhat deistic religio-moral perspective. Even though they explicitly taught specific religious beliefs shared by the majority of citizens, the public schools were called “non-sectarian” and received government funding, unlike the so-called “sectarian” privately funded Catholic schools.

The third order of pluralism slowly emerged from the late nineteenth century through the mid twentieth century and has been dominant for at least the last four decades. Now “non-sectarian” means secular. “Sectarian” means any explicitly religious belief of any sort which is banished from the schools, indeed from all of public life. Secular views dominate public life. Skillen points out that the battle over the schools or Charitable Choice by people like Barry Lynn on the one hand (who as head of Americans United totally opposes Charitable Choice) and Pat Robertson (who, as leader of the Christian Coalition, supports Charitable Choice as long as people like Muslims and Buddhists are excluded) is a battle between second- and third-order pluralists.

Both want the majority to have a monopoly of the public square with the right to determine who and what is sectarian. But whereas Robertson is a second-order pluralist who is willing to let secularists thrive in private where they cannot, for example, write the curricula for public school classrooms, Lynn wants a secular majority to control school curricula and define the terms of publicly-funded welfare services while making room for [Robertson] and other fundamentalist sectarians in private quarters alone. . . . Neither viewpoint can envision public pluralism.34 Charitable Choice points to a possible fourth order of pluralism–public, structural or institutional pluralism. This fourth order recognizes that many religions are profoundly public as well as private and that any attempt to banish religion to the private sphere is simply religious imperialism on the part of 32 33 34

Monsma, Henry Lecture, p. 11.

Skillen, “E Pluribus Unum,” Princeton Seminary Bulletin, pp. 285-305.

Ibid., pp. 296-7.

14

allegedly secular but in fact deeply religious Enlightenment deists and philosophical naturalists. In the fourth order of pluralism, the essential principle is “equal public treatment of all faiths, with none having the right, through control of government, to monopolize public policy and funding for its point of view.”35 Consequently, in the delivery of social services, government works with every effective provider without regard to whether they are secular or religious so that every person has the opportunity to receive services from a provider that shares their perspective. And government protects the right of every religious provider (including secular naturalists) to maintain their institutional identity by being free to hire staff who share their faith commitments.

Charitable Choice does not call for special privileges for religious groups or a special pot of money exclusively for faith-based organizations; it simply requires the end to public discrimination against such groups. That, of course, amounts to the end of publicmonopoly privileges for “secular” moralists [i.e., third-order pluralists like Barry Lynn] as well as for “religious” moralists [i.e., second-order pluralists like Pat Robertson]. [This fourth] order of pluralism will mean that all of America’s communities will have the same legal protection to practice their religions and nonreligions freely and that they may do so in partnership with government in many instances. . . . This is genuine pluralism.36 I want to conclude by briefly responding to a few of the criticisms and summarizing why, on balance, I support Charitable Choice.

I believe some of the critics’ concerns point to potential dangers against which we must be on guard.

It would be a tragedy if new partnerships with government resulted in the churches’ loss of their prophetic voice. But vigilance and courage can overcome this danger. Houses of worship and FBOs already have many relationships with government and politicians without losing their ability to challenge wrong policies. For decades, the African-American church probably has had an especially close partnership with some politicians without becoming a servile lackey.

There is a danger that over the long haul, government funding and regulations will result in slow secularization of FBOs. Again, vigilance can greatly reduce this threat. In his careful study of numerous church-state partnerships, Professor Charles Glenn concludes in his The Ambiguous Embrace that “government interference may be less significant than loss of conviction or lack of clarity” on the part of FBOs themselves about “the significance in practice of religious convictions, insights and actions.”37 Finally, rather than discouraging private giving, as some fear, additional government funding may encourage further private donations. If FBOs are careful to avoid excessive dependence on government funds (I recommend no more than 50 percent and preferably only 33 percent) and carefully explain to their religious donors that spiritual program components which government dare not fund are central to their success, government grants need not discourage private donors.

In spite of the dangers, I believe the arguments on the other side are finally more persuasive.

I am convinced that, other things being equal, deeply faith-based organizations will prove–when the social scientists eventually do the sophisticated quantitative studies–to be more effective than secular or nominally religious social service providers. If persons are body-soul unities, then programs that 35 Ibid., p. 298.

36 Ibid., pp. 301-02.

37 Charles L. Glenn, The Ambiguous Embrace: Government and Faith-Based Schools and Social Agencies (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2000), p. 255.

15

simultaneously offer both effective spiritual transformation and the best socio-economic and medical change will be more successful in producing the public goods desired by government than programs that only deal with one half of the problem and only offer one half of the solution. That is the case, as Luis Lugo says, “because they deliver these services in a qualitatively different manner, one that addresses matters of the heart by drawing on spiritual and moral resources that are beyond the competence of government.”38 Obviously, government funding of that kind of FBO raises important church/state issues. But I agree with Stephen Monsma that there is “a huge difference between funding a religious congregation in its core rituals and celebrations [which government should never do] and funding a religious group’s social services it is providing to the community.”39 I think Charitable Choice strikes the right balance between protecting clients’ free exercise rights and avoiding an establishment of religion while at the same time protecting the religious identity of FBOs. After all, it would be silly to encourage government to partner with FBOs because FBOs seem to work where everything else has failed and then allow the government partnership to destroy the very thing that makes some FBOs unusually successful.

Second, I think Charitable Choice and its underlying assumption of public structural pluralism is really the only way to be fair to everyone in our enormously diverse society. Carl Esbeck is right that the principle of not funding “pervasively sectarian” FBOs is “hopelessly prejudiced in favor of secular liberalism.”40 President Clinton’s former Domestic Policy Advisor, Professor William A. Galston, is right that we should embrace “the principle of maximum feasible accommodation of diverse legitimate ways of life, limited only by the minimum requirements of civic unity.”41 Our society contains a vast range of both clients and providers with an enormous range of religious views that shape the services they seek to provide and want to have. It is simply unfair for government to force a secular client to go to a religious program or compel a religious person to receive services from a secular program that implicitly or explicitly denies the person’s deepest beliefs.42 The fundamental structural pluralism embedded in Charitable Choice is one of the best ways we have discovered to be fair to everyone.

Finally, I am convinced that the new openness in Charitable Choice to government funding for all types of providers including deeply religious ones will help the poorest and most vulnerable in our society. Houses of worship and deeply religious FBOs are sometimes the only remaining functioning institutions (except for liquor outlets) in their communities. All our communities, especially the poorest, desperately need the social capital that Robert Putnam has shown is in such decline in contemporary society. Putnam’s Saguaro Seminar has also found that “roughly speaking, nearly half of America’s stock of social capital is religious or religiously affiliated.”43 We need to use all constitutionally appropriate ways to encourage religious institutions to do more to empower the most disadvantaged in our midst.

Charitable Choice, I believe, can become one significant way to do that.

10/11/02

38 Quoted in Glenn, Ambiguous Embrace, p. 240.

39 Henry Lecture, p. 4.

40 In Davis and Hankins, Welfare Reform, p. 193.

41 Liberal Pluralism (Cambridge: University Press, 2002), p. 119.

42 See Stanley Carlson-Thies in Davis and Hankins, Welfare Reform, p. 43.

43 Better Together: the Report of the Saguaro Seminar: Civic Engagement in America (Harvard University, Kennedy School of Government, 2002) p. 65.

16

From Soft Patriarchy to Mutual Submission

Ronald J. Sider

Professor of Theology, Holistic Ministry & Public Policy Palmer Seminary President Evangelicals for Social Action

From Soft Patriarchy to Mutual Submission

My Mom and Dad modeled the best of soft patriarchy. They loved each other deeply, discussed everything with each other and made decisions together. Dad obviously respected Mom and virtually never (I cannot remember any instance) criticized her publicly.

But Dad was clearly the head of the family. He took the lead in family activities. Mom certainly did not challenge or correct Dad publicly. They lived happily enjoying a deep partnership within the overall framework of soft patriarchy although I do not know what cost my mother may have paid.

My wife Arbutus grew up in a fairly similar home. Her parents probably communicated a little less.

As a pastor, my Dad was more obviously in a leadership role than her Dad. But Arbutus’ Dad was also clearly the gentle but undisputed head of the family.

Nothing in either of our churches (Brethren in Christ for me, Amish Mennonite for Arbutus) suggested anything different. Soft patriarchy in the home and male leadership in the church were not controversial. They were just assumed.

I do not remember talking about male headship as we approached marriage. While dating we easily developed a pattern of discussing virtually everything together. I respected Arbutus’ intellectual ability (she like myself had the top grades in her high school class). But we both assumed I would take the lead.

Nor do I remember much discussion of feminism during my graduate school years at Yale in the 1960’s. Arbutus continued to do for me what my mother had done through my undergraduate years— she typed all my term papers! She also did most of the housework in addition to teaching or studying full time. (Looking back, it is clear that however “soft” the patriarchy, it certainly was not fair.)

My earliest memories of egalitarian thinking are from the early seventies. The issue surfaced pointedly in Chicago at the 1973 Thanksgiving Workshop that issued the “Chicago Declaration of Evangelical Social Concern.” I do not recall any major efforts to invite substantial numbers of evangelical women, but there were enough there to object vigorously to my first draft that said a lot about racial and economic justice, but nothing about gender justice.

Eventually we agreed to a brief but powerful two sentences for the final declaration. “We acknowledge that we have encouraged men to prideful domination and women to irresponsible passivity. So we call both men and women to mutual submission and active discipleship.” Intellectually, I agreed with the statement in 1973. Learning how to live it out is taking a lifetime.

Don Dayton’s historical research into the origins of feminism in nineteenth century evangelicalism also affected my thinking. In Discovering an Evangelical Heritage (published first as articles in PostAmerican/Sojourners in 1974-75 and then as a book by Harper in 1976), Don described the vigorous biblical feminism that was a central part of the evangelical movement of evangelism and social justice centered at Oberlin College in the 1830’s to 1860’s and beyond. I was delighted to learn about the way that evangelist Charles Finney and his colleagues at Oberlin College championed both evangelism and racial and economic justice. The strong call for equality for women as a central part of this holistic nineteenth century evangelicalism that I came to admire greatly was part of the total package I gladly 1

embraced. I rejoiced in the lectures on evangelical feminism that Don and his wife Lucille (my sister) gave at evangelical colleges in the seventies.

I do not know exactly when I read Leonard Swidler’s article, “Jesus Was a Feminist,” published in Catholic World in January, 1971. But it was probably in the early 70’s when I was teaching at Messiah College’s Philadelphia campus and Swidler was a professor across the street at Temple University. I disagreed with a good deal of Swidler’s more liberal ideas, but I found his historical evidence for the way Jesus challenged the male prejudice of his time solid and convincing.

Swidler contrasted Jesus’ words and actions with the typical male attitudes toward women in Jesus’ day. Women were not supposed to study the Scriptures. One rabbi said it was better to burn a copy of the Torah (the first five books of the Old Testament) than give it to a woman. Another rabbi declared that teaching your daughter the Torah is like teaching her sexual immorality. Women were not obligated to say the regular prayers. One of the daily prayers of the time recited by men thanked God they were not Gentiles, slaves, or women. Women were irrelevant when the synagogue calculated the number needed for a quorum (women, children and slaves simply did not count). It was disreputable for a rabbi to speak to a woman in public. A rabbinic saying summed up the general attitude: “At the birth of a boy, all are joyful, but at the birth of a girl all are sad.”

Swidler’s article showed how Jesus’ practice was radically different. Jesus appeared in public with women, travelled with them and taught them theology. When Martha asked Jesus to command Mary to play the typical woman’s role and help prepare the meal, Jesus approved of Mary’s sitting at his feet, listening to his teaching (Luke 10:41-42). When the woman with the longstanding flow of blood (which made her and anyone she touched ritually unclean) touched Jesus, Jesus did not consider himself unclean. Rather he affirmed her action and healed her (Matt. 9:22).

It is difficult for us to imagine how shocking it must have been to first-century men when Jesus allowed the woman (Luke 7:36ff) whom they all knew to be a person of ill repute to wash his feet with her tears and wipe them with her hair—in public! The story of Jesus in Samaria makes it clear that the disciples’ astonishment at Jesus’ conversation with the Samaritan woman was even more because she was a woman than because she was a Samaritan (John 4:27). These stories show how radical Jesus’ behavior was.

Jesus’ attitude toward marriage so astonished his disciples that they concluded it would be better not to marry at all (Matt. 19:10). Why? In Jesus’ day, polygamy was permissible for men (but not for women) and the divorce laws allowed men (but not women) to easily divorce their spouse. Only a man could ask for a divorce. Jesus rejected this double standard. Marriage was to be between one man and one woman. Divorce was possible only in the narrowest of circumstances. And husbands and wives had the same rights and obligations (Mark 10:2ff; Matt. 19:3ff).

Swidler even failed to discuss one of the most striking things. Even though first-century Jewish men considered the word of a female witness useless in court, Jesus honored women with the first resurrection appearances. (You can be sure Jewish men did not make up that story!)

I found Swidler’s data (and similar information that I later discovered) solid historical evidence for the claim that Jesus clearly rejected the prejudice against women that was so widespread in his day. In encounter after encounter, Jesus treated women as equals. The conclusion seemed obvious to me: if the one I confessed as God Incarnate lived and taught the equality of women, I had better do the same.

2

My theology on women had changed a lot, but our marriage was still rather traditional in many ways. Our communication was very good and we regularly made decisions together. But I still retained many of the instinctive attitudes of soft patriarchy. When our children arrived, Arbutus gladly chose to be at home full time for more than ten years. My respect for Arbutus’ skills and knowledge as a teacher meant that I was happy to have her take the lead in researching public schools to determine where our children would attend. My office was just a hundred steps away from our apartment on Broad Street in North Philadelphia, so I spent a great deal of time at home with the family. But I just assumed that Arbutus would do the housework.

Then in 1975 and 1976, new developments led to painful struggle. The Evangelical Women’s Caucus (which emerged in part from the 1973 Chicago Workshop and Chicago Declaration) sponsored a conference in Washington in 1975. Arbutus attended. She was captivated by evangelical women articulating a vigorous, biblically grounded call for egalitarianism. Returning home, she reported that she had fallen in love again with the Bible as she saw how the biblical story of creation, fall and then redemption in Christ was a story of God acting to restore women to wholeness and equality. Arbutus also insisted that we must go together to any future conferences on evangelical feminism. Otherwise, she warned, we would grow apart. I agreed.

Then in 1975 Arbutus and I and several others moved to the Germantown section of Philadelphia and formed a house church called Jubilee Fellowship. Others included Al and Sue Krass and John and Judy Alexander (John was the editor of The Other Side (an evangelical, social justice magazine). We were all basically evangelicals—but of the radical late-sixties, early-seventies type! Evangelical feminism was certainly a passionate commitment. And not just in theory. “Cleaning the toilet” was not just for wives.

Women had equal representation on all the leadership teams (actually, we called them “Listening” teams because even the term “leader” was suspect as non-egalitarian). Strong “natural” leaders like myself had to tread very carefully. Arbutus soon became a more active leader in Jubilee Fellowship than I was.

Even that would probably have been fine (I was, after all, becoming enormously busy with lecturing and writing after Rich Christians in an Age of Hunger appeared in 1977). Except that Arbutus insisted not only on thinking new theological thoughts for herself, but even embracing ideas I considered theologically wrong. I became frustrated and angry when she stubbornly refused to accept my views. I’m sure my motives and feelings were complex. I did think I was defending historic Christian positions. But I also think part of the problem was a sinful desire to control her. (There were also other complexities that a wonderful Christian marriage counselor helped us sort out.) It took us a couple years of intense effort, painful struggle, determined faithfulness to each other and much prayer before we found resolution. Slowly I was able to say that it is OK for us not to agree on everything. And Arbutus also found herself more comfortable reaffirming all the things we had in common. Much conversation and genuine listening to each other’s feelings as well as words led to a deeper level of mutual submission.

Both theologically and practically, by the late 1970’s, both Arbutus and I had moved a long way from the soft patriarchy of our parents. That is not to say all my questions had been resolved. I was still not certain how to understand a couple of the “hard passages” in Paul. But I was inclined to agree with John Howard Yoder who argued in The Politics of Jesus that the proper context for understanding St. Paul was the new truly revolutionary situation of the early church which was living out a new freedom and equality for women that was truly astonishing in the first century world. In order not to cause offense to the Gospel Paul cautioned women against flaunting their new freedom.1 1

Politics of Jesus (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1972), pp. 174-82.

3

I certainly did not know how to understand Paul’s comment that women should be silent in church (I Corinthians 14:33-35), but I knew that since Paul himself expected women to be praying and prophesying in the congregation (I Corinthians 11:5; cf. also Acts 21:9), he could not mean that women were literally to be forbidden to speak in the congregation. Perhaps there was some local situation that we no longer fully understand (perhaps the wives were so liberated by the freedom for women in the early church that they were disruptively shouting to their husbands in the middle of worship).

Furthermore, I was reassured by the knowledge that Dr. Kenneth Kantzer, editor of Christianity Today and rock-solid evangelical theologian, publicly argued that nothing in the New Testament precluded the ordination of women.

It would have been difficult, given my social context in Jubilee Fellowship, to reject the equality of women. But I was then and have always been strongly committed to the full reliability and final authority of the Scriptures. If I had thought that the Bible clearly forbid egalitarian marriages and the ordination of women, I would have gone that way. (That is still true.) But I believed that the proper interpretation of the Scriptures leads to equality, even though I was not clear how to interpret a few isolated texts.

What became clearer and clearer to me, however, was that the overarching biblical story led clearly to full inclusion of women in every aspect of church life and mutual submission in marriage. And the early church continued Jesus’ astonishing treatment of women. Peter uses the Messianic passage from Joel 2:28-32 to explain the outpouring of the Holy Spirit: “In the last days, God says, I will pour out my Spirit on all people; your sons and daughters will prophesy. . . . Even on my servants, both men and women, will I pour out my Spirit in those days, and they will prophesy” (Acts 2:17-18). In the dawning Messianic time, both women and men prophesy.

In the redemption which Christ brings, both men and women are equally redeemed (equally forgiven through the cross, equally transformed by the Holy Spirit, equally part of the priesthood of all believers, equally gifted to prophesy). In a passage generally understood to be talking about public worship, Paul refers to women praying and prophesying (I Corinthians 11:5). Paul refers to women coworkers as deacons (Romans 16:1) and apostles (v. 7). Priscilla corrected Apollos’ theology (Acts 18:2426). Some object that Paul does not name any women co-workers as “pastors”; but neither does he so name any individual men as pastors. Given the circumstances of the culture, it is not surprising, as my colleague Craig Keener points out, that more ministers, and all of his traveling companions, were male.

Nevertheless, Paul’s two most common terms for his fellow ministers (“fellow worker”) apply to women as well as men (Rom. 16:1-5). In fact, Paul not only names some women co-workers (Phil. 4:2-3), but names more women co-workers than men in his greetings in Romans 16. It is not surprising that Paul would summarize this amazing set of redeemed social relationships that flowed from redemption in Christ with his sweeping words: “There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, neither male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Galatians 3:28).

When one compares the way Jesus and the early church treated women with the normal patterns of first-century Jewish life, it seems clear that what the prophets had predicted in general about the time of the Messiah was understood by the early Christians to include the area of the treatment of women. The prophets had prophesied that when the Messiah came, all the inroads of sin would be defeated. Justice, peace, right relationships with God and between people and even the creation would be restored. Obviously that full restoration of all things will happen only at Christ’s second coming, but it has already begun in dramatic ways. Jesus’ followers are now to be peacemakers who love even their enemies; we are now to be husbands and wives who keep our marriage vows; we are now to share 4

generously with the poor. And we are now to treat women as equal members of Christ’s new Messianic community, the Church. That is the way Jesus (and to an astonishing degree, also, the early church) actually lived.

There are two texts (I Cor. 14:34-35 and I Tim. 2:11-12) that at first sight seem to suggest otherwise. To this day, I do not feel certain that I fully understand them. But since the broad sweep of revelation history moves from equality at creation through terrible brokenness in male-female relationships because of the Fall to a radical departure in Jesus and the early church from typical firstcentury male prejudice against women, I conclude that these two texts probably refer to some local situation rather than a universal norm.

But what about male headship in the family? Does not Paul clearly teach headship in I Corinthians 11:3ff and Ephesians 5:23? Does Paul mean to say that God wants the husband to be “boss”?

It is probably accurate to say that both Roman and Jewish contemporaries of Jesus and Paul thought husbands were to be the leaders who ruled the family. As I have noted, however, those contemporaries also thought women were inferior in lots of ways that Jesus and Paul did not. Paul regularly talked about the way that the Gospel broke down the traditional social barriers and prejudices.

In the first century, Jews hated Gentiles, masters oppressed slaves, men belittled and sometimes despised women, and cultured “Greeks” scorned less fortunate “barbarians.” Paul keeps insisting that in Christ, these distinctions become largely irrelevant. Christ died for all. Women, slaves, barbarians and Gentiles are justified through Christ just like Jewish men. The gift of the Holy Spirit fell on women and men just as the prophet Joel had predicted. There is only one baptism, one Spirit, one body, and that means “there is no Greek or Jew, circumcised or uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave or free” (Col. 3:11). And Galatians 3:28 insists that because we are all children of God through faith in Christ, there is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female.

Something very radical was going on in the early church. Jesus and the early church were living out the dignity and equality of women in a way that went far beyond what was normal in their culture. In fact, one of the most striking illustrations of that is in the instructions to women and men in Ephesians 5.

Household codes parallel to Ephesians 5 were common in the ancient world. But the ethical advice was usually only to the socially superior person—i.e., only men or masters. Paul treated both seriously as responsible ethical persons calling both wives and husbands, both slaves and masters, to ethical responsibility. Furthermore, where secular authors told the husband how to govern and rule his wife, Paul said absolutely nothing about that. Instead he spoke in the strongest terms about how the husband must be a servant to his wife. We totally distort the discussion of the husband as head if we fail to see it in the context of this dramatically new Christian attitude toward women.

But what does the word “head” mean? The Greek word head (kephale) very seldom meant leader or boss in ancient Greek.2 The Old Testament did sometimes use the word head in this symbolic way, but in the Greek translation of these passages, the Greek word head (kephale) is very seldom used. On purely linguistic grounds, there is no reason to think that the normal meaning of the husband as head in Ephesians 5:23 and I Corinthians 11:3 is that the husband is the leader or boss who governs and rules the home.

2

See Kroeger’s essay Appendix III, in Gretchen Gaebelein Hull, Equal to Serve: Women and Men in the Church and Home (Old Tappan, N.J.: Revell, 1987), 267-83.

5

In Greek, the word head frequently means source—as in the head (or source) of a river. This meaning makes sense in I Corinthians 11. In verse 9, Paul explicitly refers to the Genesis story of Eve being taken from the side of Adam; i.e., man is the source of woman in the literal sense of Genesis 2. In similar ways, God the Father is the source of the Son and Christ is the source of the church. Therefore, in verse 3 of I Corinthians 11, Paul says the head (i.e., source) of every man is Christ and the head (i.e., source) of the woman is the man (i.e., remember Genesis 2) and the head (source) of Christ is God the Father.

When one turns to Ephesians 5, it is Christ as Savior, servant, and source of salvation, not Christ as ruler and master, that is in Paul’s mind when he says Christ is head of the church (v. 23).

At first glance, however, one might conclude that since the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church (v. 23), Paul must be talking about ruling and governing. Surely Christ is lord, master, and ruler of the church. But Paul cannot possibly mean that the husband is head of the wife in exactly the way that Christ is head of the church. Think of the differences. Christ is true God, the one unique, divine healer and Savior. Christ died for the sins of the whole world. Every Christian worships Jesus Christ. None of that is true in the case of the husband who Paul says is head of the wife.

In short, there are many, many ways that the headship of Christ over the church is different from the headship of the husband. Therefore, we dare not assume that ruling and governing are part of the meaning of the husband as head unless the text explicitly says that.

It is important to note what the text of Ephesians 5 actually says about what it means for the husband to be the head of the wife. And remember that the normal Greco-Roman statement in precisely this kind of common household code was to order the head of the household to govern and rule the wife. There is not a bit of that here. Instead, Paul tells the husband to be head precisely by imitating Christ’s self-sacrificial death for the church. That is the only content of headship in this text.

It is true that Paul tells the wife to submit to her husband. What does that mean? First, the word to submit is not the word for obey. A bit later in this passage, Paul tells children and slaves to obey their parents and masters. But he does not use the word obey in the parallel advice to wives. Verse 33 provides the only amplification of submission in the text and all it says is that wives should respect their husbands.

The text of Ephesians 5 simply does not talk about husbands ruling the home or governing their wives. Surrounding pagans regularly said that. Some Christians today want to read that into the text. But that is hardly the way to treat Scripture.

What is in the text is mutuality! The whole section begins with mutual submission in v. 21: “Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.” A simple textual fact requires that we link v. 21 with v. 22 where the discussion of wives submitting to their husbands begins. That simple fact is that v. 22 has no verb at all! It just reads: “wives, to your husbands as to the Lord.” The verb is missing. You have to get the verb from v. 21, which talks about mutual submission. Mutuality is also in v. 31 where Paul cites Genesis, showing how a man leaves father and mother and becomes one flesh with his wife. Equally striking is the mutuality in Paul’s words to husbands and wives in I Corinthians 7:1-7. Mutual submission is all through this text. “The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife and likewise the wife to her husband” (v. 3). “Do not deprive each other except perhaps by mutual consent” (v. 5).

6

Jesus and the early church represented a revolution in the status of women. Incidentally, that has continued over the centuries, even though, I must confess, it has often been too slow in happening. But all around the world as Christian faith spread to Muslim, Hindu and Confucian societies, women experienced a dramatic new freedom, dignity and equality.

I think our discussion of the only two New Testament usages of head with reference to husband has shown that there is no exegetical, textual reason for thinking that husbands should govern or rule their wives and always be the leader.

Let me conclude with some more personal comments. Over the years, I tried to puzzle over what my being head means for our marriage. The Bible is my authority and I do not believe that it errs.

Therefore, I do not think Paul was mistaken in using the word head for husbands. But what should it mean in our lives and in the lives of all Christian couples who want to be biblical?

Obviously it does not mean that the husband always handles the finances, walks three paces ahead, or is solely responsible for spiritual growth in the family. Whoever does math and bookkeeping better should handle the finances. Both husband and wife are created in the image of God and have unique natural gifts, both are born again, filled with the Spirit, and both are called to mutual responsibility for each otherâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s and the childrenâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s spiritual growth. I simply do not know any biblical text that says that only the husband is responsible for the spiritual growth of the family.

Is the husband supposed to make all the decisions (after, of course, gentle, respectful conversation with his wife)? Some think that is a central part of the meaning. But if that is what it means, then I suspect that usually a husband sacrificing himself for his wife the way Christ did for the church would regularly decide to do what his wife wanted when they could not agree. Actually, Arbutus and I had some of that understanding for a while. Our goal was to make all decisions that affected both of us and the family together. Almost always, when we disagreed, we could postpone the decision and wait for more discussion. In those rare occasions when we could not agree and could not wait to decide, then I would make the decision. But I assumed that would normally mean (if I really obeyed Ephesians 5) that I should choose her preference.

Actually, I cannot remember any time in years when we did not make a decision together. The only exceptions were times when I lost my temper, but that hardly qualifies as a pattern for biblical headship.

What I have just described, however, does not really fit with the biblical material that I have just summarized. Rather what I used to do (at least the provision for the rare cases where I would decide) still tended to assume the understanding of the husbandâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s headship as boss rather than source.

Today we would put it this way. The central call of Ephesians 5 and I Corinthians 7 is for mutuality and servanthood in husband-wife relations. Mutual submission is our motto and mutual decision making is our practice. Normally, we defer to the one who has the greater experience and knowledge in a particular area. Or we ask each other how important the issue is on a scale of one to ten. Then we go with the choice of the person who feels more strongly on the issue. And if we cannot agree, we wait.

I really cannot see how anything other than mutual submission and mutual decision making fits with New Testament teaching and practice with regard to women. I do not see how one can deny that Jesus and the early church were treating women with a dramatic new dignity and equality. Is it really consistent with the New Testament picture of one body where men and women are one in a new 7

revolutionary way to call for husbands to be in a one-up position over their wives and make all the decisions, at least the big ones? I cannot look Arbutus in the eye and tell her I love and respect her as my equal and then say I will make the decisions. Of course I realize that there could be and has been a lot of love, gentleness and respect in many hierarchical marriages. But I find the analogy of polygamy illuminating. I have no doubt but that some men with several wives truly love and respect each wife and try to treat each one with dignity and fairness. But nobody thinks that that kind of unequal relationship, however kind and respectful, can be truly mutual. What is it that keeps Christian men from embracing mutual submission? Is the ultimate issue power?

I believe Arbutus has been created in the image of God just like me, forgiven at the cross just like me, filled with the Holy Spirit just like me, called to use her gifts in Christâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s body just like me. I want to look deep into her eyes and trust and respect her as my peer and my equal just as much as my lover and sweetheart. The better part of me wants her to have just as much power and influence in our marriage as I do. I think Jesus and Paul call me to that. Mutual submission is the best phrase I know to describe how I want to treat her and how I want her to treat me.

4/15/09

8

“God’s Special Concern for the Poor” from the Jesus Day Manual Ronald J. Sider

For more information on Jesus Day/March for Jesus, click here: http://www.jesusday.org Poverty Today In developing nations, according to the World Bank, 1.3 billion persons have to try to survive on one dollar a day. Another 2 billion need to live on two dollars a day. Most of us in the United States are among the richest twenty percent of the world’s people–and we are 150 times as rich as the poorest twenty percent!

In the United States, over 35,000,000 people live in poverty in the richest society in human history. Their income actually dropped from 1974 to 1996. That is true both in comparison to the well-to-do majority and also in absolute terms. From 1974 to 1996, the bottom 20 percent lost 10 percent in real income (i.e., after taking inflation into account). The top 20 percent gained 39 percent, and the top 5 percent gained 65 percent.

In 1997, 35.6 million persons–13.3 percent of the U.S. population–fell below the official poverty line. For a married couple with two children, the poverty level in 1998 was $16,530. This seems like a lot of money. In fact, it is if you compare it to the one dollar a day on which 1.3 billion people in the developing world live. On the other hand, the mean family income in the United States in 1997 was $56,902! Financially, it means stretching every penny and having no budget for many things such as furniture, vacations, recreation, private health insurance, and so on that most of us take for granted. Poor people, of course, do have some of these things. Somehow, they manage to spend less on food and housing, beg from family and friends, or do part-time work that is never reported to the IRS. This is what it means financially to live at the official U.S. poverty level. The vast majority of the 36 million people in the United States who are poor live below the poverty level. Forty percent of all poor families have incomes under 50 percent of the poverty level. Imagine a family of four living on $8,265 a year!

American Christians give less and less each year as their wealth continues to grow. It is blatantly obvious that middle class Western Christians do not practice what we preach. Our hypocrisy turns secular neighbors from Christ.

The richest 20 percent of the world’s people, including the vast majority of Western Christians, are 150 times as rich as the poorest 20 percent. That kind of abundance makes possible vast, generous sharing. Instead, the richer we become, the less we give.

In 1968, typical church members gave about one third of a tithe (3.14 percent of their income). It has dropped virtually every year. By 1995, typical church members gave less than a quarter of a tithe (2.46 percent). Further, the vast majority of that giving stayed in their own congregation. What a blatant contradiction! Christians profess to believe what the Bible teaches. Yet we spend more and more on ourselves and less and less on others. Jesus must weep.

Each day, at least 50,000 die of starvation, malnutrition, and preventable diseases. Every day, about 50,000 people enter eternity without being told about God’s incredible love in Christ.

Those dying without the knowledge of Christ are largely the same people whose lives are ravaged by hunger, malnutrition, and starvation.

Do Christians care that one fifth to one quarter of their neighbors are both desperately poor and without any knowledge of our Lord? Would the way we spend our money suggest an answer to that question? Christians make up one third (33 percent) of the world’s people, but we receive two-thirds (66 percent) of the world’s total income each year. We spend 97 percent of that on

ourselves. We donate about 2.5 percent to charity. And all but a tiny fraction of that charitable giving stays with rich Christians running expensive programs in their own congregations and nations.

The gap between rich and poor is stark—and growing. In 1960, the income of the richest 20 percent of countries in the world was thirty times as much as the poorest 20 percent. By 1990, the richest 20 percent took sixty times as much as the poorest 20 percent. Does it matter to God that even with growing wealth we give less than 3 percent to charity and spend most of that on ourselves?

Biblical Teaching on the Poor The Bible says some explosive things about this question. Jesus’ parable of the sheep and goats drives me to sober reflection every time I ponder it. To those who did not feed the hungry and clothe the naked, he will utter a terrible judgment: “Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels” (Matt. 25:41). The apostle John issues the same stark warming: “If anyone has material possessions and sees his brother in need but has no pity on him, how can the love of God be in him?” (1 John 3:17).

The Bible is full of passages that underline God’s special concern for the poor. There are literally hundreds of texts. I once collected them all in a book called For They Shall Be Fed . Just the biblical passages on how God and God’s faithful people love the poor filled up almost two hundred pages.

Four biblical truths about the poor are essential if the church today is to be faithful.

1. Repeatedly, the Bible says that the Sovereign of history works to lift up the poor and oppressed. That teaching is especially clear when we look at the central points of revelation history. Consider the Exodus. Certainly God acted there to keep the promise to Abraham and to call out the chosen people of Israel. But again and again the texts say God also intervened because God hated the oppression of the poor Israelites (Ex. 3:7–8; 6:5–7). Annually at the harvest festival the people of Israel repeated this confession: “The Egyptians mistreated us.... Then we cried out to the Lord, the God of our fathers, and the Lord heard our voice and saw our misery, toil and oppression. So the Lord brought us out of Egypt” (Deut. 26:6–8). God acts in history to lift up the poor and oppressed.

2. The Bible also teaches a second, more disturbing truth. Sometimes, the Lord of history tears down rich and powerful people. Mary’s song is shocking: “My soul glorifies the Lord ... He has filled the hungry with good things but has sent the rich away empty” (Luke 1:46, 53). James is even more nasty: “Now listen, you rich people, weep and wail because of the misery that is coming upon you” (James 5:1).

What is going on? Is creating wealth a bad thing? No. The Bible is very clear that God has created a gorgeous world and placed human beings in it to revel in its splendor and produce an abundance of good things. Is God biased? No. The Bible explicitly declares that God has no bias either toward the rich or the poor (Deut. 10:17–18).

What then is the problem? Why do the Scriptures warn again and again that God sometimes works in history to destroy the rich? The Bible has a simple answer. It is because the rich sometimes get rich by oppressing the poor. Or because they have plenty and neglect the needy. In either case, God is furious.

2

James warned the rich so harshly because they had hoarded wealth and refused to pay their workers (5:2–6). Repeatedly, the prophets said the same thing (Ps. 10; Isa. 3:14-25; Jer. 22:13–19; Isa. 3:14–25). “Among my people are wicked men who lie in wait like men who snare birds and like those who set traps to catch men. Like cages full of birds, their houses are full of deceit; they have become rich and powerful and have grown fat and sleek.... They do not defend the rights of the poor. Should I not punish them for this?” (Jer. 5:26–29).

Repeatedly, the prophets warned that God was so outraged that he would destroy the nations of Israel and Judah. Because of the way they “trample on the heads of the poor ... and deny justice to the oppressed,” Amos predicted terrible captivity (2:7; 5:11; 6:4, 7; 7:11, 17). So did Isaiah and Micah (Isa. 10:1–3; Mic. 2:2; 3:12). And it happened just as they foretold.

According to both the Old and New Testaments, God destroys people and societies that get rich by oppression.

But what if we work hard and create wealth in just ways? That is good and God is pleased—as long as we do not forget to share. No matter how justly we have acquired our wealth, God demands that we act generously toward the poor. When we do not, the Bible says, God treats us the same way he does those who oppress the poor. There is not a hint in Jesus’ story of the rich man and Lazarus that the rich man exploited Lazarus to acquire wealth. He simply neglected to share. So God punished him (Luke 16:19–31).

Ezekiel contains a striking explanation for the destruction of Sodom: “Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy.... Therefore I did away with them as you have seen” (16:49–50).

Again, the text does not charge them with gaining wealth by oppression. It was because they refused to share their abundance that God destroyed the city.

The Bible is clear. If we get rich by oppression or if we have wealth and do not reach out generously to the poor, the Lord acts in history to destroy us. God judges societies by what they do to the people at the bottom. That is how much God cares for the poor.

3. The next biblical truth about the poor is this: the Bible says that God identifies with the poor so strongly that caring for them is almost like helping God. “He who is kind to the poor lends to the Lord” (Prov. 19:17). Vinay and Colleen Samuel are making loans to the Creator of the universe! On the other hand, one “who oppresses the poor shows contempt for their Maker” (14:31).

Jesus’ parable of the sheep and goats is the ultimate commentary on these two proverbs.

Jesus surprises those on the right with his insistence that they had fed and clothed him when he was cold and hungry. When they protested that they could not remember ever doing that, Jesus replied: “Whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me” (Matt.

25:40). If we believe his words, we look on the poor and neglected with entirely new eyes.

4. Finally, the Scriptures teach that God’s faithful people share God’s special concern for the poor. God commanded Israel not to treat widows, orphans, and foreigners the way the Egyptians had treated them (Ex. 22:21–24). Instead, they should love the poor just as God cared for them at the Exodus (Ex. 22:21–24; Deut. 15:13–15). When Jesus’ disciples throw parties, they should especially invite the poor and disabled (Luke 14:12–14; Heb. 13:1–3). Paul held up Jesus’ model of becoming poor to show how generously the Corinthians should contribute to the poor in Jerusalem (2 Cor. 8:9).

The Bible, however, goes one shocking step further. God insists that if we do not imitate

3

his concern for the poor we are not really his people—no matter how frequent our worship or how orthodox our creeds. Because Israel failed to correct oppression and defend poor widows, Isaiah insisted that Israel was really the pagan people of Gomorrah (1:10–17). God despised their fasting because they tried to worship God and oppress their workers at the same time (Isa. 58:3–7).

Through Amos, the Lord shouted in fury that the very religious festivals he had ordained made him angry and sick. Why? Because the rich and powerful were mixing worship and oppression of the poor (5:21–24). Jesus was even more harsh. At the Last Judgment, some who expect to enter heaven will learn that their failure to feed the hungry condemns them to hell (Matt. 25). If we do not care for the needy brother or sister, we simply do not know God (1 John 3:17).

Jeremiah 22:13–19 is a most astonishing passage. Good king Josiah had a wicked son Jehoiakim. When Jehoiakim became king, he built a fabulous palace by oppressing his workers.

God sent the prophet Jeremiah to announce a terrible punishment.

The most interesting part of the passage, however, is a short aside on this evil king’s good father: “He defended the cause of the poor and needy, and so all went well. ‘Is that not what it means to know me?’ declares the Lord” (v.16, emphasis added). Knowing God is inseparable from caring for the poor. Of course, we dare not reduce knowing God only to a concern for the needy as some radical theologians do. We meet God in prayer, Bible study, worship—in many ways. But if we do not share God’s passion to strengthen the poor, we simply do not know God in a biblical way.

I fear that many Christians today who think they are very orthodox are actually heretical at just this point. If Jeremiah 22:16 and 1 John 3:17 present one biblical criterion of genuine knowledge of God, what does God think about rich Christians who are living in countries that are sixty times as wealthy as the poorest one-fifth of the world’s countries, and yet share less than 3 percent of their abundance? Is that not heretical defiance of explicit biblical teaching? As we Christians examine our houses, cars and family budgets, can we say our lifestyles are conformed to Christ rather than the world?

Now please do not misunderstand me. I am not advocating poverty—or Marxism. I think creating wealth in just, sustainable ways is very good and urgently important. The unemployed need jobs. The Creator wants us to revel in the good earth given to us as a gift to treasure and develop.

The biblical teaching on poverty and possessions contains a wonderful subtlety and balance. There is a materialism that is godly. According to the scriptures, the material world is not an illusion to ignore or an evil to escape. It is a good gift to embrace. It is a ring from our Beloved.

The material world is so good that the Creator becomes flesh, so good that we await the resurrection of the body, so good that all creation stands on tiptoe eagerly anticipating the restoration of the groaning creation.

The Creator placed men and women in this fabulous world as stewards, uniquely shaped in the divine image to tend and care for God’s good garden. Tracing the steps of the Creator in science, technology and the responsible production of more wealth is very good. Christians should rejoice in the way the modern world has been able to produce such an abundance that it would be possible—if we cared enough—for every person living today to have the opportunity for quality education and good health care—not to mention enough food, clothing, and housing.

The Bible, however, also issues a warning at just this point. Material abundance acquired justly is a good gift. But it is also dangerous. It is so easy to trust in our wealth rather than God (1 Tim. 6:9–10). It is so easy to treasure material things more than persons and God. We cannot serve God and mammon (Matt. 6:24). Strangely, growing wealth often hardens our hearts to the

4

poor rather than sparking greater generosity.

A recent study of Christian giving illustrates the problem. In 1968 per capita income in the U.S. was $9,831 and church members on average gave 3.14 percent. By 1992, per capita income had grown to $14,515 (in constant 1987 dollars). But we only gave 2.52 percent! It is so easy to imitate the rich fool preoccupied with constructing ever larger barns (Luke 12:16–21) rather than the good wife of Proverbs who “opens her arms to the poor” (31:20).

Our world desperately needs a biblically balanced understanding of wealth. And also poverty! Some people want to blame the victims for their poverty. Don’t the poor create their own misery by laziness and sinful choices about sex and alcohol? Others think a wicked “system” is entirely to blame. The real world is far more complex.

Some people are poor because they make sinful choices. Others are poor because they believe a religious worldview that denies them dignity and discourages change. (Hinduism’s caste system, for example, claims that both the rich and the poor should accept their fate so they will be better off in a future reincarnation.) In both situations, people need to hear the Gospel, embrace a biblical worldview about the dignity of all, and experience the redeeming power of Christ.

Some people are poor because of natural disasters or inadequate tools and knowledge.

They need Christians who will share emergency food and appropriate technology so they can produce enough to care for their families.

Still others are poor because of injustice in the way the courts work, the laws are made, the land has been divided or opportunities for education and jobs are shared. Earlier we saw the very explicit biblical teaching that sometimes people get rich by oppressing others. Christians need to work with all people of goodwill to create free, just social systems. God wants everyone to have the opportunity to own property and earn a living that enables them to participate freely as dignified members of their community.

Biblical people know that bread and justice for everyone is very important. They also know it is not enough. The poor of the world also need Jesus. They need to know that no matter how despised, trampled and famished, the Creator of the world loves them so much that Jesus would gladly have died just for them. They need to know that right now, the Risen Lord longs to forgive their sins, transform their broken lives and welcome them to life eternal. They also need to know that this same God cares especially for the poor, hates injustice, and now invites them to become coworkers in transforming society.

Think of what would happen if we shared this full biblical message with the more than one billion people who do not know either justice or Jesus. Of course, they won’t believe us unless we preach Good News to the poor the way Jesus did. He lived what he preached. He walked with the poor and met their material needs as he taught and preached. Think of the explosive power that would flow from a church today living as he lived. The poor of Jesus’ day never doubted that bringing Good News to the poor (Luke 4:18) was one central part of his mission. All they needed to do was look at what he said and did. But when today’s poor look at the church, they have strong reasons for doubting that we are serious about Jesus. Unless Christians today live sharing lifestyles that match God’s concern for the poor, our preaching will be weak and our faith heretical.

What would it take for Christians today to convince the poor that we are truly disciples of Jesus? Jesus Day is a great day to start.

Twelve Principles for a Just Society

5

The following twelve principles summarize the biblical norms and holistic framework for a just society: 1.

Made in the very image of God, every person enjoys an inalienable dignity and worth that society must respect.

2.

Persons are not just complex socio-economic, materialistic machines, they are also spiritual beings enjoying God-given rights and responsibilities. Each person is a body-soul unity made for relationship with God, neighbor, and earth.

3.

Because the trinitarian God created persons for mutual interdependence in community, society must be organized in ways that nurture the common good. Since persons reach their potential only in a multilayered community of diverse institutions (family, church, school, media, business, government), society must promote policies (consistent with religious freedom for all) that strengthen all institutions to play their full proper role.

4.

Every policy, both public and private, must be measured by its impact on the poor and marginalized because biblical faith teaches that one of the central criterion by which God judges societies is how they treat the least advantaged.

5.

Both because God wants all persons to be dignified participants in their communities and because centralized power is always dangerous, we must strengthen the economic and political power of the poor.

6.

Renewing the family must be a central goal for both government and civil society. (A family is that set of persons related by marriage, blood or adoption.) While recognizing that today’s families come in many shapes (two-parent, single parent, blended), all policies, both public and private, should promote the biblical norm of mother and father (united in life-long marital covenant) with their children, surrounded by a larger extended family.

7.

Every person and family should have opportunity to acquire and use (without discrimination based on religion, race or gender) the productive resources that, if used responsibly, will enable that person or family to earn a decent living and be a dignified participating member of the community.

8.

Everyone able to work has an obligation to do so, and society, where possible, has the responsibility to make work opportunity available to all. Everyone who works responsibly should receive a living income.

9.

Society should care–in a generous, compassionate way that strengthens dignity and respect–for those who cannot care for themselves.

10.

Quality education must be available to all, regardless of family income.

11.

Quality health care consistent with society’s present knowledge and resources must be available to all, regardless of family income.

12.

Every community must enjoy public safety. Communities should be places where people normally feel physically secure, violence is rare, and the police and courts function without bias for or against anyone.

Loving the Whole Person the Way Jesus Did: Combining Evangelism and Social Ministry Genuine Christians love the whole person the way Jesus did.

6

Cassandra was a frightened single mom on welfare in one of Chicago’s poorest neighborhoods. When her doctor told her she was pregnant again, she agonized over the possibility of an abortion. Fortunately, her doctor worked at a Christian medical clinic and suggested that she talk to one of the pastors of the church connected with this holistic community center.

Cassandra expected a stern preacher to give her a fire-and-brimstone sermon. Instead she found a gentle friend. He listened, invited her to church, and told her about Jesus’ love for her. When she accepted Christ a few weeks later, a new peace and joy began to flow through her life.

Her boyfriend, however, was suspicious. All her talk about Jesus and Pastor Grant made Showen jealous, but he could not deny that something beautiful was beginning to happen to his girlfriend. One Sunday, he decided to check things out for himself. After Pastor Grant’s sermon, Showen too accepted Christ.

That was the easy part. It took Cassandra and Showen four more years of struggle to learn what it really means to follow Christ. “I had accepted Christ into my heart,” Showen reports, “but I had not made him Lord of my life.” Lovingly, patiently, Paul Grant and his wife Du Rhonda walked and prayed with Cassandra and Showen, who slowly grew in Christ until they decided to marry—the first Christian marriage in either of their immediate families! They asked God to use their marriage as a witness to their relatives about the goodness of Christ-centered marriage.

God has answered their prayer. Several of Showen’s close relatives have also become Christians.

Showen and Cassandra are not on welfare today. Cassandra works full time at Circle Urban Ministries (CUM), a multimillion-dollar-a-year complex of programs in remedial education, recreation, health services, job training, and small business development. Showen is now the General Manager of CUM’s most successful small business. On-the-job training developed Showen’s natural gifts. In 1993, the company he manages employed twelve people full time and cleared a net profit of fifty thousand dollars.

God dramatically transformed Showen and Cassandra Franklin.

How? Through Christians at this wonderful church and community center sharing the whole Gospel with them and then walking arm-in-arm as God transformed them into whole persons.1 I wonder what would have happened if Cassandra and Showen had wandered into a typical church. Many theologically liberal congregations would have gladly given them food baskets, health care, and job training. Tragically, however, they would probably never have gotten around to telling them that they could have a personal relationship with the Savior who longs to change their hearts and habits. Many theologically conservative churches would 7

have told them about Christ, but they might never have offered a doctor or a job, because that smacks of the “Social Gospel.”

But Showen and Cassandra needed both in order to experience the wholeness God wants them to enjoy. Fortunately, God led them to Rock Church and Circle Urban Ministries, where faithful Christians care about the body and the soul—together. Like Jesus, they care about the whole person. The result for Showen and Cassandra was sweeping, lasting transformation that continues to ripple through a large extended family. Caring for the whole person, like Jesus, works miracles. Lopsided Christianity cannot.

This story points to one of the most important reasons for the weakness of the modern church. The roots of the problem are complex, but at the beginning of the twentieth century, one branch of Christianity—the “Social Gospel” branch—realized the need to focus on social action. At the same time, another large group—the evangelicals—felt called to focus on evangelism. For decades they criticized each other. Social Gospel people claimed that Jesus and the rest of the Bible compel us to care about the physical needs of people. And they were right. Evangelical folk insisted that according to Jesus and the Scriptures, nothing is as important as a living relationship with God in Christ. And they too were right.

Tragically, foolishly, each side used the other side’s sinful neglect of one half of Christian mission to justify their own stubborn neglect of the other half. The result has been lopsided, ineffective churches.

How could people who confess Jesus as both true God and true man reject Jesus’ example? How could people who worship Christ as the Eternal Word become flesh ignore his perfect combination of word and deed?

Jesus’ tender concern for the whole person—soul and body—is clear in every Gospel. He preached and he healed. He satisfied sick hearts and sick bodies. Matthew says it pointedly: “Jesus went through all the towns and villages, teaching in their synagogues, preaching the good news of the kingdom and healing every disease and sickness” (Matt. 9:35).

Why? Because he loved people—whole people. Again and again, the Gospels say Jesus healed people because he had compassion for them (Matt. 14:14; 15:32; 20:34; Mark 1:41). His tender concern for the widow who had just lost her son still moves us across twenty centuries: “When the Lord saw her, his heart went out to her, and he said, ‘Don’t cry’” (Luke 7:13). Jesus raised the boy because his heart ached for this lonely, weeping widow.

The Gospels clearly demonstrate that Jesus spent a lot of time healing physical brokenness. But it was not because he thought life here on earth was the most important thing.

Explicitly, pointedly, Jesus taught that even if one gained absolutely everything in this world, it would not be worth losing 8

one’s relationship with God (Mark 8:34–38). The Creator designed us to live forever with him. Absolutely nothing in the world—not even everything in the world!—is worth jeopardizing that relationship.

Tragically, Christians often distort this important teaching.

Some Christians conclude from Mark 8:34–38 that evangelism is the only thing that really matters. Saving souls is our central concern. Healing sick bodies and broken societies is unimportant.

Jesus never said that. His actions prove exactly the opposite. Jesus could have spent all of his time preaching and urging people to repent. After all, he knew better than anybody else how important it is to come to personal faith in the living God. But a careful look at the Gospels shows that Jesus spent about as much time ministering to people’s physical needs as he did preaching. If Jesus is truly God in the flesh, then he is our perfect model. Since he cared for the whole person, so should we.

If we don’t, we disobey the One we worship.

Jesus cared about whole persons because he was the Creator.

He knew we have been created, not merely as bodies and not merely as souls. Every person is a “body-soul-in-community.”

Any view that reduces us primarily or exclusively to mere bodies or mere souls is simply unbiblical. Since we are not merely material beings, nothing in the material world can finally satisfy us. Material wealth, sex, political power are all finally inadequate. We are made for a relationship with God, and we are invited to live forever in God’s presence. Therefore, any solution to the human problem that focuses primarily on economic development or structural change via politics is bound to fail.

On the other hand, our bodies are not a mere accident. The Creator made us body-soul unities. Even when Paul longed to leave the body and be with the Lord, he insisted that God’s final plan for us is bodily resurrection—that wholeness of body-soul unity intended by the Creator (2 Cor. 5:1–4; 1 Cor. 15:35ff.). If the body is so good that the Creator became flesh, rose bodily, and promises to restore the whole created order including our bodies, then any approach to human need that ignores or neglects physical needs is flatly heretical.

Black evangelist/social activist John Perkins underlines this point. As he worked in the midst of white racism, whites often said, “John, I love your soul.” They wanted to lead him to Christ without struggling against racial and economic oppression.

Perkins’ answer is profoundly biblical: “My soul is in a black body. If you really want to get to my soul, you’re first going to have to deal with this body.”

Jesus’ teaching and example and the Bible’s view of persons are just two of many biblical reasons why genuine Christians 9

refuse to spend all their time and energy on evangelism. As we shall see in chapter nine, the God of the Bible has a special concern for the poor and weak, and he commands his people to share his concern. Furthermore, Christ is Lord of all of life, including economics and politics (see chapter eight). In chapter five, which discussed the church, we saw how being one in Christ means caring about the physical and spiritual needs of other believers. And when Christ returns, believers will be resurrected bodily, the groaning creation will be restored to wholeness, and the glory of the nations will enter the new Jerusalem. If the Bible is true, then physical work, human life, and history matter a lot to God. People are made to live on this good earth and enjoy its wonders for “three score years and ten.” The splendor of soaring Rockies, the ecstasy of a couple in love, and the beauty of Mozart and Michaelangelo are all astounding gifts from a boundless, loving Creator. But they are not the Creator. They are rings from our Beloved, not the Beloved Himself.

But we are also made to live and reign forever with the Risen Lord in a restored world. Life then will be different from history as we now experience it. Nothing in the world we now enjoy is worth as much as a saving relationship with Christ who gives eternal life. If we keep our hearts fixed on the Divine Lover as we treasure and delight in his gorgeous gifts, we will be able to keep a biblical balance between evangelism and social transformation.

What a tragedy that some Christians today are embarrassed to tell their friends about this wonderful Savior. What a tragedy that some Christians are so preoccupied with correcting injustice and restoring the environment that they never find time to tell dying persons that God invites them to eternal joy in the divine embrace.

Nothing is more important for every Christian today than sharing Jesus with those who do not yet know him. Faithful Christians nurture a passion for evangelism at the center of their prayers and action.

We evangelize because the world that he gave his not perish (John 3:16). If transforming love, how can embrace?

of God’s astounding love. God so loved only Son so that all who believe will we have been sought and embraced by we fail to lead others to that same

We share the Gospel because we understand the uniqueness of Christ. The Galilean champion of marginalized women, lepers, and beggars was the Eternal Word in whom God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell (Col. 1:19). If we believe the church’s central confession that the Creator of the galaxies once trod the dusty paths of our little planet to bring us salvation, how can we fail to tell others that long ago in Palestine God became flesh for us?

10

We tell others about the Savior because Jesus is the only way to salvation. With Peter, we confess that “there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among mortals by which we must be saved” (Acts 4:12 NRSV). If we know he is the only way, how can we neglect to tell those who have not heard?

We proclaim the Gospel in submission to his last command.

Gladly, obediently, we go into every nation on earth inviting all people everywhere to become disciples, receive baptism, and obey all that Christ taught (Matt. 28:19–20). If we know who he is, dare we disobey his last command?

We spread the Good News because Jesus is the best gift we have to offer. We know that there is absolutely nothing we could share with others that would bring them anywhere nearly as much joy and blessing as a living knowledge of our Lord. Can we love our neighbors and not share our best treasure?

We also announce the Gospel because we know people are lost, both now and forever, without Jesus Christ. Knowing that “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (Rom. 3:23), knowing that some people will someday hear Jesus’ terrifying words, “depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire” (Matt.

25:41), we evangelize with a holy urgency. If we believe Jesus’ warning, how can we fail to shout in fear and trembling: Please dear son, daughter, neighbor, turn from the way of death to your loving Savior who seeks you with arms outstretched!

We invite people to Christ because in Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection, God has drawn back the curtain and offered us a little glimpse of the future. We know it is God’s good pleasure that eventually the kingdoms of this world will become the kingdom of our Lord (Rev. 11:15) and that even the groaning creation will be healed at Christ’s return. If we understand God’s grand design, how can we not eagerly invite people to enjoy its splendor?

Finally, we share the Gospel so that the whole world may be full of God’s glory. Paul longed for the day when every tongue would “confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father” (Phil. 2:11). Having tasted the sweet, awesome splendor of God’s glory, will we not eagerly seek to spread it throughout the universe?

Our broken world needs nothing as much as the Gospel. But it must be the biblical Gospel, not some watered down, lopsided version. Faithful Christians gladly embrace both evangelism and social concern. Biblical faith demands it. Jesus modeled it. And it works!

We saw how Rock/Circle’s loving combination of word and deed radically transformed the lives of Showen and Cassandra Franklin.

11

But their story is not an accident or an isolated incident.

Hundreds and hundreds of people have come to faith in Christ in the last ten years through the church and community center at Rock/Circle.

The same thing is happening in scores of other holistic ministries that (like Rock/Circle) are part of the Christian Community Development Association. Consider, for example my friend Bishop Dickie Robbins, who pastors a church in one of the poorest neighborhoods in one of the poorest cities in the country.

I first met Dickie Robbins when he took my class on holistic ministry. I soon discovered that he was already practicing what I was preaching about linking evangelism and social action. Thirty percent of the 230 members at Life in Christ Cathedral of Faith in Chester, Pennsylvania, have come to the church through its holistic ministry to people hooked on drugs and alcohol. In fact, other churches sometimes refer to this congregation as “the little drug church on Third Street.” In their Drug Free Ministry–and the many other social ministries run by this small congregation–evangelism is central. And people are transformed.

When David Scott first got to know Bishop Robbins, his life was a disaster. David had been on drugs for twenty-three years and was facing a likely eight-to-fifteen year prison term. Bishop Robbins led him to personal faith in Christ and told him to marry the woman he was living with. Fortunately, David received eleven months on work release instead of time in jail and was able to work every day with Bishop Robins. The Holy Spirit used Robbins’s intense, extended discipleship program to work wonders. Today Elder Scott and his wife, Carol, are among Bishop Robbins’s most important leaders. David oversees all the church’s social ministries–and still finds time to serve on a board at Crozier Hospital along with one of the county judges.

Life in Christ’s ministries are changing their community.

Their Love in Feeding Everyone (LIFE) ministry provides meals for 150 people each week. Drug Free Ministry serves at least sixty people a week. Generation of Destiny tutors and mentors teenagers so they never get hooked on drugs. Eagle’s Nest Academy makes quality education available for about 130 kids, many from poor families, from grades K through 11. (The public school system is ranked last out of 501 districts in the state!) Each ministry will have its own 501(c)3 status, but Bishop Robbins chairs each board to make sure it reflects the church’s holistic vision.

From the beginning, Bishop Robbins was determined to build a church that would transform people and the surrounding community.

He told the local newspaper that he came to do “more than just set up another church.” He planned to “build a ministry.” In one of his powerful sermons, he compares churches to car repair shops.

There are two types: “Both have the same equipment, but one produces fixed cars and one doesn’t.” Broken people come into 12

Bishop Robbins’s repair shop–and come out transformed. “The way to determine how effective a ministry is is to see how the people come out, not how they come in.”

Gerald Pierce came in hurting. When Dickie Robbins returned to his hometown of Chester, he heard reports that his former classmate (and a gifted musician) was using drugs–even while serving as a church musician. His marriage was on the rocks and he had lost his kids. Bishop Robbins invited Gerald to join him.

Robbins said he could not pay much money, but he promised tough discipling! Gerald agreed.

Today Elder Pierce leads the church’s extensive program in music and fine arts: drama, praise dance, mime, step, and choirs.

He just released an album called “Let It Rain,” which he wrote and produced. “The devil thought he had destroyed Gerald,” Bishop Robbins says, “but God has turned him around. Through his music and ministry, people are getting saved all over.”

God has only begun to work wonders at Life in Christ Cathedral of Faith. The church has plans for ministries in economic development, prison ministry, and fine arts evangelism.

But Bishop Robbins believes that it is crucial to wait until leaders have been trained. So he is investing in a training program in which each leader trains another leader. The congregation’s 230 members are committed. Before you can join the church, you have to complete a ten-week class for new members–and also sign up to work in at least one church ministry. This congregation is poised for explosive growth.

That is good news. It is even better news that holistic ministries like Life in Christ in Chester and Rock/Circle in Chicago are flourishing all around the world. Vinay and Colleen Samuel’s similar programs in a desperately poor neighborhood in India serve 50,000 people and regularly lead persons to Christ.

Ichthus Fellowship, with its emphasis on words, works and wonders among the poor of London, has grown from fourteen people to over two thousand in twenty years. I know of dozens of mature ministries serving the whole person all around the world. I have told some of the best stories in Cup of Water, Bread of Life. In the U.S. alone, the Christian Community Development Association has several hundred ministries seeking to develop in their local communities the kinds of holistic programs working so successfully at places like Rock/Circle.

There is good reason to think that the tragic separation of evangelism and social transformation is coming to an end. At its international congress in Manila in 1989, the Lausanne Committee for World Evangelization insisted that “good news and good works are inseparable.”4 Evangelicals who had formerly majored almost exclusively on evangelism are now increasingly also doing social ministry. Other Christians who had been hesitant about evangelism have reaffirmed their commitment to spread the Gospel.

13

Think of the phenomenal growth of evangelical social ministries in the last few decades. World Vision exploded from a tiny ministry to Korean orphans to vast ministries in one hundred countries with an annual budget of $340 million (1994). Many other ministries like Compassion, World Relief, and World Concern raise tens of millions of dollars each year to feed the hungry and empower the poor.

Nor is it just traditional evangelical groups that are promoting evangelism. The worldwide Anglican communion designated the 1990s the “Decade of Evangelism.” Pope John Paul II named 1990–2000 the “Universal Decade of Evangelism.” His recent encyclical Redemptoris Missio is a ringing plea for renewed attention to sharing the Gospel with those who do not know Christ.

“The poor are hungry for God, not just for bread and freedom.”5 As the next two decades unfold, we could enjoy a better marriage of word and deed than at any time in the previous one hundred years. There are hundreds of mature holistic models like Rock/Circle and Calvary Baptist where evangelism and social concern walk hand in hand, transforming broken people and desperate neighborhoods. Their biblical balance and obvious success is inspiring thousands of newer ministers to imitate them as they have imitated Christ. We should pray and expect that God will raise up tens of thousands of ministries like Rock/Circle all around the world. In fact, would not a million please Jesus even more?

That’s how I dream about the twenty-first century. I hope for a time when vast numbers of local churches have caught Jesus’ vision of love for the whole person. I see thousands of Christian colleges, Bible Schools, and seminaries all around the world captured by Jesus’ model, sending out tens of thousands of skilled, enthusiastic leaders every year to pastor biblically balanced churches. I imagine scores of books, Sunday School lessons, and seminars training the laity to combine evangelism and social passion.

I dream of the day when the congregation that neglects evangelism or justice is the exception rather than the rule. I long for the time when most Christians are in congregations where each month they experience the joy of hearing about new people who have just begun to taste the goodness of salvation. I yearn for the day when most Christians are in congregations that walk with the needy, say no to all forms of prejudice, and reach out to heal broken communities.

I long for the day when the church truly obeys Jesus’ last command: “As the Father has sent me, I am sending you” (John 20:21). If even a substantial minority in the church ever dares to do it his way, strongholds of Satan will fall, the angels will rejoice, and the world will be renewed.

14

And more and more desperate people like Juan de Jesús will find astounding peace in Christ. In 1990, Juan was a bitter old drug addict dying of AIDS. In fact when Juan learned he had AIDS, he was so furious that he purposely infected about 2000 needles and syringes with his blood before selling them to drug users.

Hundreds got AIDS. How then, five years later at Juan’s funeral, could his pastor say that Juan was the best example of the power of God to change a person that he had ever seen?

Life as a young Puerto Rican in New York City was rough. His drug-abusing father and uncle taught him to use drugs and live off the prostitutes he conned as a fast-talking pimp. For years he lived in the fast lane. By the spring of 1991, however, he was hospitalized with an advanced case of AIDS. Each day he got worse.

His doctor predicted that he would not see another birthday. Juan tried to commit suicide but the noose (of oxygen tubing) broke.

There was just one ray of hope as Juan lay dying. One Christian visitor frequently visited the hospital, sitting quietly at his bedside, talking to him, and asking how he could help. He helped him drink his juice and bought him some socks. Finally angry Juan was ready to listen as this visitor told him about God’s love. One night soon after, Juan cried out: “Jesus, if you’re really God, let me know you before I die.”

Slowly he began to improve. His friend made plans to find him a home after he left the hospital. But the hospital gave Juan his valuables about an hour before his scheduled departure. Juan left by himself and promptly spent his money on drugs. Despair flooded back into his life.

Not long after, Juan again contemplated suicide as he sat alone and desperate in a park. Just then a young man came walking toward him. Juan’s first thought was to do what he had so often done in the past—knock him down with his brass knuckles and rob him. But the young man walked right up and announced: “Jesus loves you. My dad used to be an addict like you, and Jesus helped him stop.”

Still Juan hesitated. Should he smack him? Juan wavered.

Then, hesitantly he consented to go with the young man. Juan found a church full of love, joy, and exuberance. He came to faith in Christ and gladly accepted the church’s offer to find him a place in a Christian drug rehabilitation program.

The only place they could find was in North Philadelphia near a holistic health center called Esperanza started by a very dear friend of mine, Dr. Carolyn Klaus. Esperanza’s doctors and nurses offer both excellent health care and the love of Christ. Working closely with local Hispanic churches, they integrate evangelism and medicine.

15

Esperanza’s Dr. Mike Moore became Juan’s doctor. When Dr. Moore first met Juan in January 1992, Juan was ill and depressed.

That busy day, Dr. Moore had just enough time to give Juan some medicine and say a couple words of encouragement. He also gave Juan Scriptures selected for people with AIDS. At Juan’s next visit a week later, Dr. Moore was surprised to find Juan visibly changed. Moore discovered that John 3:16 had spoken powerfully to Juan’s heart.

Dr. Moore walked closely with Juan over the next few months.

He offered medicine, counsel, and prayer. Dr. Moore prayed that God would do what he could not. Soon Juan stopped praying for healing. Instead, he was content to ask God just to be “preserved.”

The earlier doctor’s warning that Juan would not live to see another birthday proved wrong. God gave him three more years—and Juan used them to minister in a powerful, loving way to others dying of AIDS. Juan learned how to read so he could study the Bible. Then he hit the streets. But he was a changed person. On the street corners and in the parks, he told others about how Jesus had transformed his life. He visited people dying of AIDS in the hospital to bring encouragement and invite people to Christ. Dr. Moore sometimes asked Juan to visit other patients of his who were hospitalized with AIDS. Even when Juan himself had to be hospitalized, he continued to encourage other patients.

Finally, in the last few months of 1994, Juan himself became much sicker. But even during the final stay in the hospital, Juan continued to grow in his trust in God. When Dr. Moore asked Juan what was most important to remember about him, Juan said: “That God is real and that he is living in me.” Juan died of AIDS on February 4, 1995. But as Dr. Moore says so powerfully, the Divine Healer had the last word: “When Juan’s strength was gone and medicine had done all it could do, the Lord saw fit no longer to ‘preserve’ him here, but to heal him in His own presence.”

It would have been so much better if Christians who love the whole person had gotten to Juan many years earlier. Then perhaps he would have had a long, full life of joy and wholeness like Cassandra and Showen Franklin. But even after HIV had begun its deadly march through Juan’s body, the Divine Healer still worked powerfully—first to preserve Juan for three astonishing years of gentle, effective ministry here and then to heal him completely for joy unspeakable in the presence of the Risen Lord.

An Historic Opportunity I am convinced that in the first five to ten years of the new millennium, Christians in the United States have a historic opportunity unparalleled in decades, perhaps in the twentieth century.

16

Dismayed by repeated failures to reduce poverty, secular policy elites are astonishingly open to faith-based proposals and contributions. With some old fears and battles resolved, the widely divided Christian community shows increasing signs of readiness to work together to empower the poor. With more empirical evidence emerging every year, faith-based approaches look increasingly attractive. It is realistic to think that a biblically based, empirically grounded holistic vision and strategy could become widely influential and dramatically reduce poverty in the next decade.

American Christians stand at a historic crossroads. We face one of the greatest opportunities in our history. We have more material resources than ever before. Tragically, we are also more materialistic and more focused on individual self-fulfillment. Will we take the path of generosity and justice? Or will we slip slowly into ever greater self-gratification?

Two Tools to Help 1)

The Generous Christians Pledge: I pledge to open my heart to God’s call to care as much about the poor as the Bible does.

I therefore commit: Daily, to pray for the poor, beginning with the Generous Christians Prayer: “Lord Jesus, teach my heart to share your love for the poor.”

Weekly , to minister, at least one hour to a poor person: helping, serving, sharing with, and, mostly, getting to know someone in need.

Monthly , to study, at least one story, book, article or film about the plight of the poor and hungry and discuss it with others.

Yearly , to retreat, for a few hours before the Scriptures to meditate on this one question: “Is caring for the poor as important in my life as it is in the Bible?” and to examine my budget and priorities in light of it, asking God what changes he would like me to make in the use of my time, money, and influence.

You can order multiple copies of the pledge, plus a Retreat Kit and books on how Christians can work to overcome poverty by contacting the Generous Christians Campaign (10 E. Lancaster Avenue, Wynnewood, PA 19096; Tel: 800-650-6600; Fax: 610-649-8090; E-Mail: esa@esa-online.org).

2)

Network 9:35:

Network 9:35's vision is that every Christian congregation be engaged actively in holistic ministry – leading people to faith in Christ and working for social transformation.

Network 9:35 accomplishes this by nurturing and strengthening local congregations, pastors, and lay leaders who are committed to and engaged in holistic mission. We offer materials, develop new channels of communication, and research what congregations most need to increase their holistic ministry.

Through a collaborative effort of a number of agencies and churches, Network 9:35 provides services and resources to congregations and agencies engaged in holistic ministry. We

17

coordinate efforts among a growing group of diverse people and entities who desire to serve the church in an effective manner. Our mutual goal is to build relationships and thereby increase the ability of congregations to strategically and compassionately reach out to their communities through evangelism and social action.

Network 9:35 provides a variety of venues for the exchange of information on holistic ministry and the practice of incarnational mission. A prime tool of the Networkâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Partners and CoSponsors is the use of a web site (www.network935.org) on the Internet.

To order a starter kit (containing books and articles) on how to engage in church-based holistic ministry, call 1-800-650-6600. For more information on Network 9:35, contact our Director, Rev. Phil Olson, at phil@esa-online.org or 610-645-9399, 10 E. Lancaster Avenue, Wynnewood, PA 19096.

Note: Most of the above is used with permission from Ron Siderâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Living Like Jesus (the textbook for Jesus Day) and Just Generosity: A New Vision for Overcoming Poverty in America . Both books are available from Evangelicals for Social Action: 10 E. Lancaster Avenue, Wynnewood, PA 19096; 1-800-650-6600.

18

“I’m Not a Social Activist” Concluding Sermon ESA’s Thirtieth Anniversary Celebration July 27, 2003

By Ronald J. Sider

I’m not a social activist. I’m a disciple of Jesus Christ, the Savior and Lord of the universe.

In the inner-city congregation where my family worshipped for more than a decade, the choir often sang a song I still love: Jesus, you’re the center of my joy; All that’s good and perfect comes from you.

You’re the heart of my contentment, Hope for all I do.

Jesus, you’re the center of my joy.

That’s what I want to talk about this morning.

I’ve been blessed in so many ways in life: wonderful Christian parents who loved each other dearly and their Lord even more; a lovely gifted woman who has grown with me over forty-two years of joyful marriage; three wonderful children; a great education; ministry opportunities that vastly exceeded even the wildest dreams of this farm boy.

At the center of all that goodness and joy stands Jesus my Lord.

My parents taught me by their words and actions what the little motto they hung in my bedroom constantly announced: Only one life ‘twill soon be past, Only what’s done for Jesus will last.

In college when classical intellectual doubt led me to question whether an honest thinker in the modern world could still believe in historic Christian faith, a brilliant professor helped me see that the historical evidence for Jesus’ resurrection was very strong.

When the typical problems that invade every marriage threatened to destroy the joy and happiness that Arbutus and I had experienced for more than fifteen years, the commands and power of Christ kept us faithful to each other and enabled us to work through tough challenges and discover a better, stronger, deeply satisfying marriage.

When new opportunities as an evangelical social activist opened up, leading me to modify my earlier sense of call to be an apologist for historic Christianity in the secular university world, I resolved to keep Jesus–the full biblical Christ–at the center of my heart,

theology and work–grounding my social activism in historic Christian faith and maintaining a strong passion for evangelism.

Jesus, you’re the center of my joy. It is you I love, you I adore and worship, and you I have sought to follow and obey.

Whenever I think carefully about Jesus, I am utterly astounded. About two thousand years ago in a little corner of the Roman Empire, an obscure Jewish carpenter claimed to be the long-expected Messiah who, his people expected, would drive out the conquering Romans and begin the new age of peace, justice and resurrection. But the authorities crucified him–using the most shameful and powerful death possible–to prove he was a fraud. But then just three days later, his astonished disciples reported, he rose from the dead. And within a very short time these strict Jewish monotheists, whose most basic belief was that there is only one God, started telling the world that the Carpenter from Nazareth was God in the flesh, Lord of the universe, reigning King although Caeser mistakenly thought he was in charge of the world. What an utterly amazing thing for a handful of oppressed Jewish colonials living at the edge of the powerful pagan Roman empire to believe and preach.

Let’s explore this incredible development a bit more under four parts: Jesus’ Gospel Jesus’ Death and Resurrection Jesus’ Person Jesus’ Agenda Jesus Gospel Virtually every time Jesus talks about his Gospel, he says it is the Gospel of the kingdom–the fantastic news that the long expected Messianic kingdom was actually breaking into history in his person and work. If Jesus had said the Gospel was just the forgiveness of sins, then people could accept Jesus’ Gospel and go on living the same way as before with no change in their racist, adulterous or materialistic lifestyles. The Gospel of forgiveness would be a oneway ticket to heaven and we could live like hell till we get there. But Jesus said his Gospel was the Good News of the kingdom.

In Jesus’ day, there was intense Messianic fervor and expectation. A number of Messianic pretenders arose and then were squelched decisively by Roman crucifixion. The Jews looked for a conquering military hero who would drive out the Romans and establish Jerusalem as the ruler of the nations. Sins would be forgiven, the dead would be resurrected, and a new age of justice and peace would prevail.

Indirectly at first, but then more and more clearly, Jesus claimed that he was the expected Messiah. He offered forgiveness of sins on the basis of sheer divine grace and he began creating justice and wholeness in persons and society as people embraced his teaching. He and his new community of disciples challenged the status quo in lots of radical ways–its attitude toward the 2

poor and marginalized, lepers, women, and violence.

The masses were excited, but also puzzled. Contrary to popular messianic hopes, Jesus rejected violence, calling on his followers to love even their enemies. The kingdom he announced was certainly a public, visible new social order where all broken social relationships were being healed, but it was not a new Jewish political kingdom to be established by military power.

This Nazarene carpenter and rabbi also startled people with some of his claims. He not only claimed to be Messiah; he also claimed divine authority to forgive sins. At his trial, he claimed to be the Son of God. Jewish leaders considered this blasphemy, and the Romans viewed all Messianic pretenders as serious political threats to Roman rule. So they worked together to kill him. Since Jewish Messianic expectation declared that the Messiah would lead a successful military campaign to drive out the Romans and inaugurate the new age, crucifixion provided powerful, indisputable proof that this Messianic pretender was a fraud. There was only one conceivable conclusion for a first-century Jew on the evening of Jesus’ crucifixion: Jesus’ claims were false. He was finished.

Jesus’ Resurrection That would have been the last word about the astonishing Nazarene carpenter, but for one thing. On the third day after his disgraceful death, first the women and then the disciples reported that they had found the tomb empty and then met the Risen Jesus. If that really happened, everything looks radically different.

But can modern folk in our scientific world still responsibly assert that the tomb was empty and Jesus was raised bodily from the dead? Obviously, if one is a philosophical naturalist who believes that nothing exists except the material world that science can in principle fully explain, then that kind of miracle is impossible. But if a transcendent Creator God exists, then that God could raise a crucified carpenter from the dead if God so chose.

As long as we start with an open mind, rather than a dogmatic philosophical bias against even the possibility of miracle, the crucial question is an historical question: What is the historical evidence for the early Christians’ astonishing claim about Jesus’ resurrection?

I have just finished reading a massive, scholarly book on the resurrection by N. T. Wright, one of the most brilliant contemporary New Testament scholars. Professor Wright argues–in 750 packed scholarly pages–that the historical evidence for Jesus’ resurrection is very strong indeed.

The fact that women were reported to be the first to meet the risen Jesus is one strong piece of evidence. First century Jewish principles of evidence considered the word of a woman useless in court. So if the disciples had manufactured the resurrection stories, the last thing in the world they would have said was that women were the first to meet the risen Jesus. The only plausible explanation for the Gospel accounts that women were the first to meet the risen Jesus is that it really happened that way.

3

In the Gospels, Acts and Paul’s letters, it is perfectly clear that it was the empty tomb and resurrection appearances that transformed discouraged defeated disciples (who understood perfectly the implications of Jesus’ crucifixion) into daring, bold evangelists. Something dramatic had to happen to cause this astonishing transformation.

At least two people–Jesus’ brother James and Saul of Tarsus–who had not followed Jesus during his lifetime became disciples after they met the risen Jesus.

The early Christians, most of whom were Jews, started proclaiming startling changes in the Jewish Messianic expectation. They certainly believed that Jesus was the Messiah (that’s why they called him “Christ”) and they proclaimed that the new Messianic Age had truly started.

But contrary to Jewish expectation, the old age continued.

Furthermore, according to Jewish Messianic hope, the Messiah was to bring with him the general resurrection of the dead. But that did not happen. Jesus had been raised as a foretaste of the general resurrection which was still in the future. The general resurrection would only happen when Christ returned. Something very dramatic must have happened to transform the Jewish view of history. Jesus’ resurrection offers the needed explanation. The same is true of the fact that very early, the Christians started worshipping on the first day of the week rather than on the traditional Jewish Sabbath. Again, if the resurrection happened on the first day of the week, that would explain this surprising change.

I could go on citing historical evidence, but what I have noted is enough to show that responsible intellectuals in the twenty-first century are on solid ground when they claim that Jesus’ resurrection is historical fact.

Jesus’ Person The resurrection, of course, radically affected the disciples’ understanding of who Jesus was and is. Rather than discredited Messianic pretender, Jesus was clearly God’s Messiah. And almost immediately, these strict monotheistic Jews began to say even more. When he personally met the risen Jesus, doubting Thomas blurted out the incredible words: “My Lord and my God.” Saul of Tarsus was a Pharisee of the Pharisees, one of the strictest monotheists of the firstcentury world. Greek and Roman polytheists ran around claiming that gods or goddesses appeared here in human flesh, but not Jews. Strict Jewish monotheists like Saul of Tarsus were the least likely people in the world to say that the carpenter from Nazareth was God in the flesh.

But that is exactly what Paul believed and taught. In Philippians 2:10-11, Paul says “that at the name of Jesus, every knee shall bow . . . and every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord.” This passage explicitly echoes Isaiah 45:20 ff., where Jahweh mocks the idols and rejects all other gods, claiming that he alone is God, concluding: “To me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear.” Paul takes those words from the mouth of Jahweh and applies them to the carpenter from Nazareth.

The word Paul applies to Jesus here is the Greek word kurios. When they translated the Old Testament into Greek and came to the word “Jahweh,” they used this Greek word kurios to 4

translate it. So when Paul says that Jesus is kurios, he means Jesus the carpenter is God. And in fact, the word Lord (kurios) came, along with Christ (Messiah) to be the most common titles for the Nazarene carpenter.

Again and again, devout first-century Jewish monotheists, now convinced that God raised Jesus from the dead, make the most astonishing claims about him:

“He is the image of the invisible God . . . all things have been created through him and for him. He himself is before all things, and in him all things hold together. For in him, all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell” (Colossians 1:15-20).

“Long ago God spoke to our ancestors in many and various ways by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by the Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, through whom he also created the worlds. He is the reflection of God’s glory and the exact imprint of God’s very being” (Hebrews 1:1-3).

“In the beginning was the word and the word was with God and the word was God . . . .

All things came into being through him and without him not one thing came into being . . . . And the Word became flesh and lived among us, and we have seen his glory, the glory as of the Father’s only Son” (John 1:1-3, 14).

“There is salvation in no one else for there is no other name under heaven given among mortals by which we must be saved” (Acts 4:12).

These are utterly astounding claims. That the Creator of 120 billion spinning galaxies should become a baby on one tiny planet circling one small star in one out of the way galaxy is utterly astonishing. That this Creator of the galaxies should model what human life should be, then die on a cross and rise from the dead is simply mind-boggling. One can only fall to one’s knees and worship. And seek and pray for the wisdom to tell others about him in the most winsome way possible.

This is the Jesus I love. This is the Jesus I have tried to follow. Jesus, you’re the center of my joy.

Jesus’ Agenda There is one more thing I want to say about Jesus–and that is to try to describe his agenda.

Remember, Jesus claimed to be the Jewish Messiah who was inaugurating the new Messianic age when all things would be made new, when all things that sin had messed up, would be transformed to wholeness. The resurrection and Pentecost confirmed that Jesus was right, that the new Messianic Age was now breaking in. To be sure, the early Christians knew that the old age of sin and injustice continued. But they believed so strongly that Jesus’ 5

Messianic kingdom was now arriving that they believed that in the power of the Risen Lord and the Holy Spirit, they could now live according to the radical kingdom values that Jesus had taught. They embraced kingdom ethics and kingdom expectations of holiness. They believed, as Paul said in 2 Cor. 3:18, that daily Christians look with unveiled faces at the glory of the Lord and daily “are being transformed into the same image from one degree of glory to another.”

The transformation that comes with Jesus’ dawning Messianic kingdom affects every area of reality–from individual persons to social systems to the groaning creation.

At the center is personal living faith in Jesus Christ the Lord whose atoning death provides free unmerited forgiveness for all who repent and whose Holy Spirit now transforms selfish, evil persons into Christ-centered wholesome human beings. Equally important is the fact that all believers become part of Christ’s new visible body where, when it is faithfully obeying all that Jesus taught, people can see a new redeemed society of transformed sinners now living a little picture of what heaven will be like.

It is a terrible misunderstanding of what the early Christians believed to reduce Christian faith to a private personal relationship between me and Jesus. It certainly starts at that wonderful point. But the early Christians believed that the resurrection confirmed Jesus’ claim that the Messianic kingdom was now beginning to take shape on this earth. And that meant the transformation not just of individuals, but of society and the broken creation. That’s why the early Christians said Jesus was now King of kings and Lord of lords. That’s why they refused to worship the Roman Emperor. That’s why Paul said in Ephesians 2-3 that the new multi-ethnic body of believers (where the ancient ethnic hostility between Jew and Gentile was overcome in Christ) was part of the Gospel. When Paul says in Ephesians 3:10 that this mystery of the church as a visible, reconciled multi-ethnic community is made known to the rulers and authorities in the heavenly places, he means to say that the visible reality of this new Christian social order is powerful evidence to twisted social structures and the demonic powers behind them that their power is broken and the new Messianic social order is now truly breaking in.

Every area of the created order is being affected. Forgiven individuals are now being sanctified. The church is a visible model of a redeemed social order. The power of the principalities and powers who have dominated fallen, twisted social structures is now being broken and society is slowly being transformed. Even the groaning creation, the non-human world of rivers, rocks and trees, which has been distorted by human sin, will at Christ’s return, “be set free from its bondage to decay and will obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God” (Romans 8:21).

At Christ’s return, too, according to Revelation 21 and 22, the glory of the nations, the best of human civilization, will be purged of its evil and taken up into the new Jerusalem, the glorious transformed earth where God will dwell with us. And the kingdoms of this earth will become the kingdom of our Christ.

Because that is the agenda of the Risen Jesus, because we know that is where history is going, we work now to establish signs of that coming complete transformation not just in individuals but also in the new society of the church and even in the total social order and the 6

creation itself. Because, as the great Dutch theologian and politician Abraham Kuyper loved to say, there is not one square inch of this whole earth that does not belong to the Risen Lord. .

Jesus’ Gospel, Jesus’ death and resurrection, Jesus’ person, and Jesus’ agenda must remain at the center of any faithful Christian social action. Social action without an evangelistic passion to share Jesus’ Gospel fails to convert the next generation of activists. Social action without Jesus’ resurrection has no power. Social action without Jesus, true God and true man, at the center is no longer Christian. Social action without Jesus’ agenda quickly loses its way.

If ESA has accomplished anything in the last thirty years, I hope it is that we have played our part in nurturing a biblical social action that is thoroughly grounded and centered in Jesus.

Jesus, you’re the center of our joy, our vision, our ministry.

As I look ahead to the next thirty years, I see glorious opportunity. Of course there are enormous dangers in the world and devastating weaknesses in the church. But if we stay centered in Christ, there is truly incredible opportunity. We have made substantial progress in the last thirty years in helping significant numbers of Christians understand God’s special concern for the poor, the biblical mandate for holistic mission which combines evangelism and social action, and a balanced biblical approach to politics. All around the world today, there are millions and millions of biblical Christians who are enthusiastically leading people to personal faith in Christ and then throwing their arms around those broken persons, walking with them to correct whatever personal and structural brokenness sin has introduced. There are millions of Christians praying and acting, planting new churches and feeding the hungry, discipling new Christians and partnering in community development, praying for the sick and transforming unjust structures. The number of holistic local congregations offering the whole Gospel for the whole world has quadrupled and quadrupled again in the last thirty years. The same and much more could easily happen in the next thirty.

Those of you who were too young to be at the beginning of ESA at the Thanksgiving workshop in 1973 must now become the leaders and seize this glorious opportunity. Those of us who were there thirty years ago will work with you as long as God gives us the strength.

To all of us I say. We are not social activists. We are disciples of Jesus the carpenter, Creator and risen Lord of the universe.

Jesus, you’re the center of our joy; All that’s good and perfect comes from you.

You’re the heart of our contentment, Hope for all we do.

Jesus, you’re the center of our joy.

Amen.

8/12/03

7

Jesus' Call To Be Peacemakers

by Ronald J. Sider Presentation to the Mennonite World Conference in Strasbourg, France in the summer of 1984.

-----------------------------------Violent economic structures annually maim and murder the poor by the millions.

Idolatrous nationalism, religious bigotry, racial prejudice, and economic selfishness turn people against people in terrifying orgies of violence in Northern Ireland, the Middle East, Southern Africa, and Latin America. The competing selfrighteous ideologies of the United States and the Soviet Union trample arrogantly on the people's dreams for justice and freedom in Central America and Afghanistan, the Philippines and Poland. Always, behind every regional conflict which kills thousands or millions, lurks the growing possibility of a nuclear exchange between the superpowers which would kill hundreds of millions. We teeter on the brink of nuclear holocaust.

Our 450 years of commitment to Jesus' love for enemies finds its kairos in these two terrifying decades. This could be our finest hour. Never has the world needed our message more. Never has it been more open. Now is the time to risk everything for our belief that Jesus is the way to peace. If we still believe it, now is the time to live what we have spoken.

To rise to this challenge of history, we need to do three things: 1)we need to reject the ways we have misunderstood or weakened Jesus' call to be peacemakers; 2) we need to embrace the full biblical understanding of shalom; 3) and we need to prepare to die by the thousands.

Jesus' Call To Be Peacemakers First, the misunderstandings. Too often we fall into an isolationist pacifism which silently ignores or perhaps profits from injustice and war as long as our boys don't have to fight. Provided conscientious objector status protects our purity and safety, our neighbors need not fear that we will raise troubling questions about the injustice their armies reinforce or the civilians they maim and kill. The most famous advocate of our time, Mahatma Gandhi, once said that if the only two choices are to kill or to stand quietly by doing nothing while the weak are oppressed and killed, then, of course, we must kill. I agree.

But there is always a third option. We can always prayerfully and nonviolently place ourselves between the weak and the oppressor. Do we have the courage to move from the back lines of isolationist pacifism to the front lines of nonviolent peacemaking?

Sometimes we justify our silence with the notion that pacifism is a special vocation for us peculiar Anabaptists. It is not for other Christians. But this approach will not work. In fact, it is probably the last stop before total abandonment of our historic peace witness. If pacifism is not God's will for all Christians, then it is not God's will for any. On the other hand, if the one who

taught us to love our enemies is the eternal Son who became flesh in the carpenter who died and rose and now reigns as Lord of the universe, then the peaceful way of nonviolence is for all who believe and obey him. Do we have the courage to summon the entire church to forsake the way of violence?

Sometimes we weaken and confuse our peace witness with an Anabaptist version of Martin Luther's two- kingdom doctrine. Luther said that in the spiritual kingdom, God rules by love. Therefore in our private lives as Christians, we dare never act violently. But in the secular kingdom, God rules by the sword.

Therefore, the same person in the role of executioner or soldier rightly kills. I was talking recently with one of our Anabaptist church leaders for whim I have the deepest respect. He said that he was a pacifist and believed it would be wrong for him to go to war. But he quickly added that the government is supposed to have armies. The United States, he added, had unfortunately fallen behind the Soviet Union and therefore President Reagan's nuclear build-up was necessary and correct. I suspect he and many other American Mennonites and Brethren in Christ have endorsed the current arms race at the ballot box.

If we want wars to be fought, then we ought to have the moral integrity to fight them ourselves. To vote for other people's sons and daughters to march off to death while ours safely register as conscientious objectors is the worst form of confused hypocrisy. If, on the other hand, we believe that Jesus' nonviolent cross is the way to peace, then we need to implore everyone to stop seeking security in ever more lethal weapons. Jesus wept over Jerusalem's coming destruction because it did not recognize his way of peace. Do we have the courage to warn the governments of the world that the ever upward spiral of violence will lead to annihilation?

Finally, the affluent are regularly tempted to separate peace from justice. We affluent Anabaptists, in North America and Western Europe, can do that by focusing all our energies on saving our own skins from nuclear holocaust and neglecting the fact that injustice now kills millions every year. We can also do it by denouncing revolutionary violence without condemning and correcting the injustice that causes that violence. In Central America today, fifty percent of the children die before the age of five because of starvation, malnutrition, and related diseases. At the same time, vast acres of the best land in Central America grow export crops for North Americans and Western Europeans. Unjust economic structures today murder millions of poor people. Our call to reject violence, whether it comes from affluent churches in industrialized countries or middleclass congregations in Third World nations, will have integrity only if we are willing to engage in costly action to correct injustice. Thank God for the courageous youth that MCC has sent to stand with the poor. But that is only a fraction of what we could have done. The majority of our people continue to slip slowly into numbing, unconcerned affluence. Do we have the courage as a united reconciling people to show the poor of the earth our peace witness is not a subtle support for an unjust status quo, but rather a commitment to risk danger and death so that justice and peace may embrace?

Embrace The Biblical Vision Of Shalom

Acknowledging past temptations and misunderstandings is essential. But we dare not remain mired in our failures. Instead we can allow the fullness of the biblical vision of shalom to transform us into a reconciling people ready to challenge the madness of the late twentieth century.

The richness of the biblical vision of peace is conveyed in the Hebrew word "shalom". Shalom means right relationships in every area -- with God, with neighbor, and with the earth. Leviticus 26:3-6 describes the comprehensive shalom which God will give to those who walk in obedient relationship to God. The earth will yield rich harvests, wild animals will not ravage the countryside, and the sword will rest. Shalom means not only the absence of war but also a land flowing with milk and honey. It also includes just economic relationships with the neighbor. It means the fair division of land so that all families can earn their own way. It means the Jubilee and sabbatical release of debts so that great extremes of wealth and poverty do not develop among God's people. The result of such justice, Isaiah says, is peace (32:16-17). And the psalmist reminds us that God desires that "justice and peace will kiss each other" (Psalm 85:10). If we try to separate justice and peace, we tear asunder what God has joined together.

Tragically, the people of Israel refused to walk in right relationship with God and neighbor. They ran after false gods, and they oppressed the poor. So God destroyed first Israel and then Judah. But the prophets looked beyond the tragedy of national destruction to a time when God's Messiah, the Prince of Peace, would come to restore right relationships with God and neighbor. (e.g., Isaiah 9:2ff; 11:1ff).

And they shall beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war anymore (Isaiah 2:4). Jesus, Christians believe, was the long-expected Messiah.

And just as the prophets had promised, shalom was at the heart of his messianic work and message. But Jesus' approach to peacemaking was not to lapse into passive nonresistance; it was not to withdraw to isolated solitude; it was not to teach one ethic for the private sphere and another for public life. Jesus modeled an activist challenge to the status quo, summoning the entire Jewish people to accept his nonviolent messianic strategy instead of the Zealot's militaristic methods.

Jesus' approach was not one of passive nonresistance. If Jesus' call not to resist one who is evil in Matthew 5:39 was a summons to pure nonresistance and the rejection of all forms of pressure and coercion, then Jesus regularly contradicted his own teaching. He unleashed a blistering attack on the Pharisees, denouncing them as blind guides, fools, hypocrites, and snakes -- surely psychological coercion of a vigorous type as is even the most loving church discipline which Jesus prescribed (Matthew 18:15ff).

Nor was Jesus nonresistant when he cleansed the temple! He engaged in aggressive resistance against evil when he marched into the temple, drove the animals out with a whip, dumped the money tables upside down, and denounced the money changers as robbers. If Matthew 5:39 means that all forms of resistance to evil are forbidden, then Jesus disobeyed his own command. Jesus certainly did not kill the money changers. Indeed, I doubt that he even used his

whip on them. But he certainly resisted their evil in a dramatic act of civil disobedience.

Or consider Jesus' response when a soldier unjustly struck him on the cheek at his trial (John 18:19-24). Instead of turning the other cheek and meekly submitting to this injustice, he protested! "If I have spoken wrongly, bear witness to the wrong; but if I have spoken rightly, why do you strike me?" Apparently Jesus thought that protesting police brutality or engaging in civil disobedience in a nonviolent fashion was entirely consistent with his command not to resist the one who is evil.

Jesus would never have ended up on the cross if he had exemplified the isolationist pacifism of withdrawal. Nor would he have offended anyone if he had simply conformed to current values as we are often tempted to do when we abandon the pattern of isolation. Rejecting both isolation and accommodation, Jesus lived at the heart of his society challenging the status quo at every point where it was wrong.

Jesus upset men happy with the easy divorce laws that permitted them to dismiss their wives on almost any pretext. He defied the social patterns of his day that treated women as inferiors. Breaking social custom, he appeared publicly with women, taught them theology, and honored them with his first resurrection appearance.

Jesus angered political rulers, smugly satisfied with domination of their subjects with his call to servant leadership.

And he terrified the economic establishment, summoning materialists like the rich young ruler to give away their wealth, denouncing those who oppressed widows, and calling the rich to loan to the poor even if they had no hope of repayment (Luke 6:30ff). Indeed, he considered concern for the poor so important that he warned that those who do not feed the hungry and clothe the naked will go to hell.

Jesus disturbed the status quo -- but not for mere love of change. It was his commitment to shalom, to the right relationships promised in messianic prophecy, that make him a disturber of an unjust peace. He brought right relationships between men and women, between rich and poor by his radical challenge to the status quo.

Repeatedly in our history, the terror of persecution and the temptation of security have lured us to retreat to the safety of isolated solitude where our radical ideas threaten no one. But that was not Jesus' way. He challenged his society so vigorously and so forcefully that the authorities had only two choices. They had to accept his call to repentance and change or they had to get rid of him. Do we have the courage to follow in his steps?

Jesus approach was activist and vigorous, but it was not violent. A costly selfgiving love, even for enemies, was central to his message. He called his followers to abandon retaliation, even the accepted "eye for an eye" of the Mosaic legal

system. He said that his followers would persist in costly love even for enemies, even if those enemies never reciprocated.

It is hardly surprising that Christians have been tempted to weaken Jesus' call to costly self-sacrifice -- whether by postponing its application to the millennium, labeling it an impossible ideal, or restricting its relevance to some personal private sphere. The last is perhaps the most widespread and the most tempting.

Did Jesus merely mean that although the individual Christian in his personal role should respond nonviolently to enemies, that same person as public official may kill them?

In his historical context, Jesus came as the Messiah of Israel with a plan and an ethic for the entire Jewish people. He advocated love toward political enemies as his specific political response to centuries of violence. His radical nonviolence was a conscious alternative to the contemporary Zealots' call for violent revolution to usher in the messianic kingdom. There is no hint that Jesus' reason for objecting to the Zealots was that they were unauthorized individuals whose violent sword would have been legitimate if the Sanhedrin had only given the order. On the contrary, his point was that the Zealots' whole approach to enemies, even unjust oppressive imperialists, was fundamentally wrong. The Zealots offered one political approach; Jesus offered another. But both appealed to the entire Jewish nation.

The many premonitions of national disaster in the Gospels indicate that Jesus realized that the only way to avoid destruction and attain messianic shalom was through a forthright rejection of the Zealots' call to arms. In fact, Luke places the moving passage about Jesus' weeping over Jerusalem immediately after the triumphal entry -- just after Jesus had disappointed popular hopes with his insistence on a peaceful messianic strategy. "And when he drew near and saw the city he wept over it, saying, 'Would that even today you knew the things that make for peace!'" (Luke 19:4ff).

Zealot violence, Jesus knew, would lead to national destruction. It was an illusion to look for peace through violence. The way of the Suffering Servant was the only way to messianic shalom. Jesus' invitation to the entire Jewish people was to believe that the messianic kingdom was already breaking into the present.

Therefore, if they would accept God's forgiveness and follow his Messiah, they could begin now to live according to the peaceful values of the messianic age.

Understood in this historical setting, Jesus' call to love enemies can hardly be limited to the personal sphere of private life.

Furthermore, the personal-public distinction also seems to go against the most natural, literal meaning of the text. There is no hint whatsoever in the text of such a distinction. In fact, Jesus' words are full of references to public life. "Resist not evil" applies, Jesus says, when people take you to court (Matthew 5:40) and when foreign rulers legally demand forced labor (v. 41). Indeed, the basic norm Jesus transcends (an eye for an eye) was a fundamental principle of the Mosaic legal system. We can safely assume that members of the Sanhedrin and other officials heard Jesus words. The most natural conclusion is that Jesus intended his words to be normative not just in private but also in public life.

We have examined the horizontal shalom with the neighbor which Jesus brought.

But Jesus also announced and accomplished a new peace with God. Constantly he proclaimed God's astonishing forgiveness to all who repent. And then he obeyed the Father's command to die as the atonement for God's sinful enemies.

God's attitude toward sinful enemies revealed at the cross is the foundation of nonviolence. Let us never ground our pacifism in sentimental imitation of the gentle Nazarene or in romantic notions of heroic martyrdom. Our commitment to nonviolence is rooted in the heart of historic Christian faith. It is grounded in the incarnation of the eternal Son of God and in his substitutionary atonement at the cross.

Jesus said that God's way of dealing with enemies was to persist in loving them.

"Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you." Why? "So that you may be sons and daughters of your Creator in heaven." In fact, Jesus went even further. Jesus said that God's way of dealing with enemies was to take their evil upon himself. The crucified criminal hanging limp on the middle cross is the eternal Word who in the beginning was with God and indeed was God, but for our sake became flesh and dwelt among us. Only when we grasp that that is who the crucified one was, do we begin to fathom the depth of Jesus' teaching that God's way of dealing with enemies is the way of suffering love. By powerful parable and dramatic demonstration, Jesus had taught that God forgives sinners again and again. Then he died on the cross to accomplish that reconciliation. The cross is the most powerful statement about God's way of dealing with enemies. Jesus made it very clear that he intended to die and that he understood that death as a ransom for others.

That the cross is the ultimate demonstration that God deals with enemies through suffering love receives its clearest theological expression in St. Paul. Listen to Romans 5:8-10: "God shows love for us in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. . . While we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of God's Son." Jesus' vicarious death for sinners is the foundation of, and the deepest expression of, Jesus command to love our enemies. We are enemies of God in a double sense. For one thing because sinful persons are hostile to God and for another because the just, holy Creator cannot tolerate sin. For those who know the law, failure to obey it results in a divine curse. But Christ redeemed us from that curse by becoming a curse for us. Jesus' blood on the cross was an expiation for us sinful enemies of God. He who knew no sin was made sin for you and me.

Jesus vicarious death for sinful enemies of God is the foundation of our commitment to nonviolence. The incarnate one knew that God was loving and merciful even toward sinful enemies. That's why he associated with sinners, forgave their sins, and completed his mission by dying for them on the cross. And it was precisely the same understanding of God that prompted him to command his followers to love their enemies. We as God's children are to imitate the loving characteristics of our heavenly God who rains mercifully on the just and the unjust. That's why we should love our enemies. The vicarious cross of Christ is the fullest expression of the character of God. At the cross God suffered for sinners in the person of the incarnate Son. We will never understand all the mystery there. But it's precisely because the one hanging limp on the middle

cross was the word who became flesh that we know two interrelated things. First, that a just God mercifully accepts us sinful enemies just as we are. And second, that God wants us to go and treat our enemies exactly the same way. What a fantastic fulfillment of the messianic promise of shalom. Jesus did bring right relationships -- both with God and with neighbor. In fact, he created a new community of shalom, a reconciled and reconciling people. As Ephesians 2 shows, peace with God through the cross demolishes hostile divisions among all those who stand together under God's unmerited forgiveness. Women and slaves became persons. Jews accepted Gentiles. Rich and poor shared their economic abundance. So visibly different was this new community of shalom that onlookers could only exclaim: "Behold how they love one another". Their common life validated their gospel of peace.

And so it must always be. Only if people see a reconciled people in our homes and our congregations will they be able to hear our invitation to forsake the way of retaliation and violence. If I am not allowing the Holy Spirit to heal the brokenness in my relationship with my spouse, I have little right to speak to my president about international reconciliation. If our Mennonite and Brethren in Christ congregations are not becoming truly reconciled communities, it is a tragic hypocrisy for us to try to tell secular governments how to overcome international hostility. It is a farce for the church to try to legislate what our congregations will not live.

On the other hand, living models impact history. Even small groups of people practicing what they preach, laying down their lives for what they believe, influence society all out of proportion to their numbers. I believe the Lord of history wants to use the small family of Anabaptists scattered across the globe to help shape history in the next two decades.

Die By The Thousands But to do that, we must not only abandon mistaken ideas and embrace the full biblical conception of shalom. One more thing is needed. We must take up our cross and follow Jesus to Golgotha. We must be prepared to die by the thousands.

Those who have believed in peace through the sword have not hesitated to die.

Proudly, courageously, they gave their lives. Again and again, they sacrificed bright futures to the tragic illusion that one more righteous crusade would bring peace in their time. For their loved ones, for justice, and for peace, they have laid down their lives by the millions.

Why do we pacifists think that our way -- Jesus' way -- to peace will be less costly? Unless we Mennonites and Brethren in Christ are ready to start to die by the thousands in dramatic vigorous new exploits for peace and justice, we should sadly confess that we really never meant what we said. We did, of course, in earlier times. In previous centuries, we died for our convictions. But today we have grown soft and comfortable. We cling to our affluence and our respectability.

Unless comfortable North American and European Mennonites and Brethren in Christ are prepared to risk injury and death in nonviolent opposition to the injustice our societies foster and assist in Central America, the Philippines, and

South Africa, we dare never whisper another word about pacifism to our sisters and brothers in those desperate lands. Unless we are ready to die developing new nonviolent attempts to reduce international conflict, we should confess that we never really meant the cross was an alternative to the sword. Unless the majority of our people in nuclear nations are ready as congregations to risk social disapproval and government harassment in a clear ringing call to live without nuclear weapons, we should sadly acknowledge that we have betrayed our peacemaking heritage. Making peace is as costly as waging war. Unless we are prepared to pay the cost of peacemaking, we have no right to claim the label or preach the message.

Our world is at an impasse. The way of violence has led us to the brink of global annihilation. Desperately, our contemporaries look for alternatives. But they will never find Jesus' way to peace credible unless those of us who have proudly preached it are willing to die for it.

Last spring I attended a large evangelical conference on the nuclear question. I shared my Anabaptist convictions and called for Christian nonviolent peacekeeping forces to move into areas of conflict such as the NicaraguaHonduras border. A former chief of the U.S. Air Force who was there told me that he was ready to join in that kind of alternative. As we talked I realized he was so terrified by the current impasse of nuclear terror that he was ready to explore every nonviolent alternative for resolving international conflict.

A number of us Mennonites are part of the Witness for Peace which now has a small nonviolent task force permanently located on the Nicaragua-Honduras border. To be sure, those few dozen Christians can offer only symbolic opposition to the weapons of war that flow both ways across that border. But think of what a few thousand could do! What would happen if the Christian church stationed as many praying Christians as the U.S. government has sent armed guerrillas across that troubled border?

What would happen if we in the Christian church developed a new nonviolent peacekeeping force of 100,000 persons ready to move into violent conflicts and stand peacefully between warring parties in Central America, Northern Ireland, Poland, Southern Africa, the Middle East, and Afghanistan? Frequently we would get killed by the thousands. But everyone assumes that for the sake of peace it is moral and just for soldiers to get killed by the hundreds of thousands, even millions. Do we not have as much courage and faith as soldiers?

Again and again, I believe, praying, Spirit-filled, nonviolent peacekeeping forces would by God's special grace, be able to end the violence and nurture justice.

Again and again, we would discover that love for enemies is not utopian madness or destructive masochism but rather God's alternative to the centuries of escalating violence that now threatens the entire planet. But the cross -- death by the thousands by those who believe Jesus -- is the only way to convince our violent world of the truth of Christ's alternative.

I want to plead with the Mennonites. Brethren in Christ, and others in the Historic Peace Churches to take the lead in the search for new nonviolent approaches to

conflict resolution. We could decide to spend 25 million dollars in the next three years developing a sophisticated, highly trained nonviolent peacekeeping force.

The most sophisticated expertise in diplomacy, history, international politics, and logistics would be essential. So would a radical dependence on the Holy Spirit.

Such a peacekeeping task force of committed Christians would immerse every action in intercessory prayer. There would be prayer chains in all our congregations as a few thousand of our best youth walked into the face of death, inviting all parties to end the violence and work together for justice.

If as a body we started such a program, we could invite the rest of the Christian church to join us. In fact, as the Witness for Peace shows, other have already begun. If we are not careful, God will raise up others to live out the heritage we have feared to apply to the problems of our day. Together the Christian church could afford to train and deploy 100,000 persons in a new nonviolent peacekeeping force. The result would not be utopia, or even the abolition of war.

But it might tug our trembling planet back from the abyss.

I have one final plea. I know we live in a vicious, violent world. I know it takes more than winning smiles and moral advice to enable sinners to love their enemies. Sinners will never be able to fully follow Jesus' ethic. But they ought to.

That they do not is the measure of their sinful rebellion. But regenerated Spiritfilled Christians can follow Jesus. Our only hope is a mighty peace revival that converts sinners and revives the church.

In the next decades, I believe we will see disaster and devastation on a scale never before realized in human history, unless God surprises our unbelieving world with a mighty worldwide peace revival. Therefore, my final plea is that we fall on our knees in intercessory prayer pleading with God for a global peace revival. At the worst of times in the past, God has broken into human history in mighty revivals that led to social movements that changed history. The Wesleyan revival in the eighteenth century resulted in Wilberforce's great crusade against slavery that changed the British Empire. The same could happen in the next few decades. Pray that God revives millions of lukewarm Christians. Pray that God draws millions of non-Christians into a personal living relationship with the risen Lord. Pray that millions and millions of people in all the continents of our small planet come to see that Jesus is the way to peace and peace is the way of Jesus.

Pray that with our eyes fixed on the crucified one, the church will dare to pay the cost of being God's reconciling people in a broken world.

Today is the hour of decision. The long upward spiral of violence and counter violence today approaches its catastrophic culmination. Either the world repents and changes or it self-destructs.

For centuries we Anabaptists have believed there is a different way, a better way.

Our world needs that alternative. Now. But the world will be able to listen to our words only if large numbers of us live out the words we speak. Our best sons and daughters, our leaders, and all our people must be ready to die. The cross comes before the resurrection.

There is finally only one question: Do we believe Jesus enough to pay the price of following him? Do you? Do I?

SCHOLAR, POPULARIZER AND ACTIVIST: PERSONAL REFLECTIONS ON M Y JOURNEY

Ronald J. Sider

Professor of Theology and Culture, EBTS President, Evangelicals for Social Action

(Presented at the international conference “Christian Scholarship . . . for What?” at Calvin College, September 28, 2001)

Church and society are often misled by people offering simplistic, one-sided answers to the big issues of their time. They pretend to know what they are talking about even though they lack the necessary expertise. Evangelicalism, especially, with its strong anti-intellectual strain, has often–whether one thinks of eschatology, science, family life or politics–been badly served by popularizers and activists with simplistic ideas and superficial solutions. Nor will that change unless more people with good scholarly training become effective popularizers and successful activists.

I am a scholar who spent several years of my life completing a Ph.D. at Yale to become a specialist in early modern European history, but ended up teaching only one course in my whole career in my area of academic specialization. I did publish two scholarly books and a few technical articles in the area of my dissertation. But when people come up and thank me for “my book,” I assume they mean Rich Christians in an Age of Hunger, not my scholarly book on the 16th century reformer Andreas Bodenstein van Karlstadt. For better or worse, I am best known as a popularizer.

My problem, however, if it is a problem, runs even deeper. I have tried not only to combine popularizing with scholarly work, but have also been an activist and organizer.

In the late summer of 1972, I returned to the U.S. from several weeks of academic labor finalizing the sixteenth century Latin and German footnotes so my doctoral dissertation would be published in the scholarly series, “Studies in Medieval and Reformation Thought,” edited by Professor Heiko Oberman of Tubingen (and later Harvard) University. In the huge pile of mail I encountered on my return I discovered an appeal sent to evangelicals across the country to donate funds to support evangelical Republican Senator Mark Hatfield’s reelection campaign. As I made a small contribution, I wondered whether progressive evangelicals could launch a similar effort for the Democratic Presidential candidate, George McGovern. I called a few folk together and within a few weeks we had organized Evangelicals for McGovern which sent out thousands of pieces of direct mail and attracted enough media attention to produce a story in Newsweek. We did not exactly swing the election (McGovern only carried one state), but a follow-up letter to our donors led to a spring meeting at the first Calvin College Conference on Christian Faith and Politics and the Thanksgiving 1973 Chicago Declaration on Evangelical Social Concern, and the founding of Evangelicals for Social Action in 1974 which I have led for all but one year since then. Even though I have had a full-time academic appointment for almost all of the years since 1968, I have invested vast amounts of time and energy in organizational and activist work on social issues. I have tried to combine the roles of scholar, popularizer and activist.

What I plan to do is first to describe three earlier efforts and then two more recent ones in my attempt to combine scholarship, popularization and activism. Especially in the last two, I can see an approach or model that may have applicability beyond my personal history. After that, I will reflect on some dangers and frustrations and then end with a few recommendations and conclusions.

In early 1996, I opened a packed press conference at the National Press Club in Washington with a prayer and then a statement declaring that this was God’s creation and therefore evangelical Christians were concerned about endangered species. There were two reasons for the Washington journalists’ interest and the flood of resulting news stories on national TV that night and scores of newspapers across the country in the next few days: first, a live cougar at the press conference representing endangered species; and second, the fact that this dramatic public stand by ESA and the Evangelical Environmental Network contradicted the widespread belief that all evangelical Christians were in the pocket of the new conservative Republican majority in the Congress which, in the view of many, was seeking to drastically

weaken the Endangered Species Act. It was my activist side that carried me into the environmental movement. I was generally concerned but had not written any popularizing, much less any scholarly, things on the topic when, in the early 90's, a caller from New York informed me that someone had told him I was an evangelical who cared about the environment. Would I help gather evangelical leaders to a meeting in New York City? I agreed and that led eventually to the very successful inter-religious coalition called the National Religious Partnership for the Environment. EEN, which I put together in the early years with the help of people like Bob Seiple of World Vision and University of Wisconsin scholar Calvin DeWitt, became the evangelical partner along with the United States Catholic Conference, the National Council of Churches, and a Jewish coalition.

With no scholarly preparation on the topic, I have relied on scholars like Cal DeWitt and many others to try to make sure I get my facts straight. All my writing on the topic has been shorter popularizing pieces.

The second effort focused on the issue of Jesus’ resurrection. In this case, I have combined scholarly and popularizing articles. My interest goes back to a period of vigorous intellectual doubt during my second year of college and then the appointment of evangelical historian John Warwick Montgomery as the new chairman of my history department for my junior and senior years as an undergraduate history major at Waterloo College in Canada. I embraced Montgomery’s passion for scholarship and apologetics based on an historical argument for Jesus’ resurrection. A couple years later when I was a leader of the Inter-Varsity-related Yale Graduate Fellowship, and a doctoral student in history, it was almost inevitable that I would lecture to the group on the historical evidence for Jesus’ resurrection.

That lecture–which I still give in much revised form–has gone through a lot of permutations and been published in at least a dozen different forms. My thinking has also benefited from considerable further study and writing. My sense of call at the time I first gave this lecture as a graduate student was to be a good Renaissance-Reformation scholar teaching in a secular university where I would offer a lowkey intellectual apologetic for historic Christianity. In order to deepen both my biblical and theological preparation for that task and to experience more of the full force of the modern challenge to orthodox Christianity, I decided to interrupt my doctoral program in history after I completed my comps and spend three years at Yale Divinity School. While there, I wrote a long paper on I Corinthians 15 for a class with New Testament Professor Nils Dahl that eventually appeared as two separate articles in two scholarly New Testament journals: New Testament Studies and Novum Testamentum. A somewhat technical article on historical methodology published in the Scottish Journal of Theology in 1972 added depth to my analysis. It also led to a fellowship in 1976 and many months of study preparing to write a scholarly book on historical methodology and the miraculous (which was never completed).

The third illustration–Rich Christians in an Age of Hunger and related publications and organizing efforts–is much more widely known than the previous two. With sales approaching 400,000 copies in seven languages, Rich Christians is my most successful effort at popularization. Had I known what I now do, I would have made quite different choices as a student to prepare for writing about world hunger and economic justice. I have only taken one–and that an introductory undergraduate–course in economics in my life. I did not take any courses in social ethics in my three years at Yale Divinity School in the 60's! I was simply not prepared either in economics or social ethics to write Rich Christians. Probably my best scholarly preparation for Rich Christians came from a number of courses in biblical studies at Yale Divinity School, and it may be significant that the best part of Rich Christians and the part that has changed the least in the four revisions is Part II on a biblical perspective.

The whole project started quite unintentionally as a sermon on world hunger for a tiny church in 1967. As I completed my sermon that Saturday afternoon, I felt that I should add some practical

application to the two sections on the facts about world hunger and a biblical framework. The idea of a graduated tithe came to me, so I included it in the sermon and my wife Arbutus and I began to practice it.

A few years later, IVCF’s His magazine published a short article titled “The Graduated Tithe.” Then Intervarsity Press gave me a contract to do a short book with the same name, but it grew like Topsy as I wrote it and for almost the only time in my career as an author, the publisher never argued even once with the title I suggested: Rich Christians in an Age of Hunger.

Knowing my lack of preparation in economics, I asked a number of friends who were economists to read the early drafts. I did not always take their advice, but they certainly helped me avoid some mistakes.

A Calvin grad, and doctoral student in economics, Roland Hoksbergen, greatly improved the economic analysis in the second edition in 1984. A couple years later, I joined Vinay Samuel in organizing a nine year process called The Oxford Conference on Christian Faith and Economics which brought together a wonderfully diverse circle of scholars (economists, business professors, biblical scholars and ethicists) as well as business leaders and activists from around the world. That too deepened my scholarly analysis.

Activism and organizing have also been a central part of my work in this third area: organizing international conferences on simple lifestyle and development; leading more than two decades of activity in ESA on the topic; founding and co-editing the semi-popular, semi-scholarly international journal Transformation; giving hundreds of speeches and writing dozens of short articles on world hunger; and, after I wrote the first edition, seeing poverty firsthand in my travels in Africa, Asia and Latin America.

A fourth experience, which started about 1995, has more of the right components for combining scholarship, popularization and activism than any earlier efforts. ESA received a substantial grant to work on the question: “If the United States truly wanted to reduce domestic poverty dramatically, what would be the full range of things that government and other sectors in society would need to do simultaneously?” >From the beginning, we set up the two-year-plus process as an interdisciplinary scholarly effort. We sought out the best evangelical scholars in all of the major areas that we knew needed simultaneous attention because they were all interlocked. Several scholars agreed to write foundational pieces dealing with underlying philosophical, biblical-theological issues to provide a conceptual framework. Others worked on specific aspects including health care, education and income.

All the authors met together at regular intervals to discuss each others’ developing drafts, argue about competing interpretations, and suggest improvements. Initially, we planned simply to publish this collection of scholarly essays (which Baker did, in a book called Toward a Just and Caring Society, edited by David Gushee).

Part way through the process, however, it dawned on me that in addition to co-authoring one of the chapters of the scholarly volume, I should consider writing a shorter, more popular book drawing on the careful chapters being written for the scholarly volume. Everyone seemed to agree, so I set to work carefully rereading all the scholars’ chapters, but also delving on my own into some of the most significant scholarship and data on the issues that I chose to highlight. I benefited enormously from the work done by the contributors to the scholarly volume. Several of them also agreed to read my first draft and virtually everyone reviewed any section related to their special expertise. Just Generosity: A New Vision for Overcoming Poverty in America was the result. Since the book had the good fortune of appearing just as American society was taking a vigorous new look at the role of faith-based programs, I was able, thanks in part to ESA and its members, to use the results of this process in a variety of activist ways including several Op.Eds. in major newspapers, lobbying, speaking, short popular articles., and consulting in Washington.

I think this is a promising model for Christian scholars who seek to contribute to the public policy debate. The broad interdisciplinary approach of this process enabled us to look, if not at the whole

picture, then at least at a large part of it, and develop a comprehensive response to poverty based on solid scholarship. Few people, however, read collections of scholarly essays by a group of different scholars, and publishers are reluctant to publish them. They are simply too technical and often lack a tightly integrated argument. Just Generosity tried to state the comprehensive vision in a much briefer, more readable, integrated argument filtered through the lenses of one mind. If I had been a more powerful writer and if ESA had had more organizing capacity, the results could have been much greater. This model--combining scholarship, popularization and activism–could be used effectively on a wide range of public policy issues.

The second recent process–dealing with the interrelationship between evangelism and social action in faith-based ministries–also combines scholarship, popularizing and activism. In this case, however, it was a brilliant graduate assistant, rather than academic colleagues, who provided the interdisciplinary help.

Sometime in 1994, I had requested a grant from the Lilly Endowment to study what difference it made when congregations running social ministries also included a strong evangelistic component. They were interested but wanted the proposal to interact in more detail with the considerable body of research on congregations that they had supported over several decades. I simply did not have the time immediately to study all of that literature carefully. So I asked Heidi Rolland, a very bright Wheaton sociology graduate who was then studying with me at Eastern Baptist Theological Seminary, to do an independent study with me, analyze that literature, and help refine the grant proposal. When we received the grant, she became the associate director of what has become a five-year project studying the diverse ways that evangelism and social ministry interact in fifteen different congregations.

In early 2002, Baker will publish a popular book, Congregations That Make a Difference, drawing on this research, but aimed at local congregational leaders, written by Heidi, Phil Olson and myself. Heidi and I are also working on a scholarly volume, hopefully to be published by a university press reporting on the same research for the scholarly and public policy community.

In this process, Heidi and I also drew on the scholarly expertise of others in several ways. Grant funds enabled us to use scholarly consultants. We also–as I have in most of my interdisciplinary work– asked friends who are specialists in specific areas to review early drafts.

This research had the good fortune of occurring at the same time that scholars like John DiIulio, then the secular media, public policy elites and the political world discovered the fact that faith-based organizations were sometims highly successful in desperately broken communities where almost everything else had failed. We were unusually well prepared to participate in the national debate about Charitable Choice and FBOs when it hit the front pages of our newspapers in 2000 and 2001. As a result, Heidi and I have given papers and participated in panels and study projects in Washington and elsewhere at a level beyond anything I had done in the past. We have published shorter articles based on this research in everything from the Brookings Review (and a Brookings book edited by John DiIulio and E. J. Dionne) to Christianity Today to several major newspapers.

This model combining scholarship, popularizing and activism, worked well because of: 1) major foundation grants; 2) a gifted graduate student with training in a crucial discipline (sociology) where I had no expertise; 3) ESA’s long track record on holistic ministry; 4) good connections to important public policy conversations through my friendship with John DiIulio; and 5) the good fortune to be completing significant research on an issue just as it became one of the hottest topics in national political debate.

Frustrations and Dangers

Trying to do what I have done is inevitably problematic for several reasons.

First, good popular writing almost inevitably requires an interdisciplinary understanding that no single scholar possesses. The general public has little interest in simply that aspect of world hunger, for example, discussed in technical detail with professional expertise by the professor of business or the professor of economic history or the professor of small business development or the professor of Christian Ethics or Old Testament or New Testament . . . and the list goes on and on. But all those specialties and more relate directly to the question: What is a Christian response to world hunger today?

The typical Christian layperson wants to read a coherent, reliable response to that broad question, not some specialized, technical paper that deals with one small aspect of the problem. Unfortunately, no scholar, however brilliant, is familiar with all those fields. Hence every popularizing scholar knows she is doing what in a sense she has no business doing.

Second, because of the complexity just noted, there is never enough time to read even half of the relevant literature. Anybody who has done a Ph.D. knows how to do exhaustive research and has strong inner inhibitions against starting to write before he has read most of the relevant literature. For the interdisciplinary popularizer, that is not possible.

Third, popularization requires simplification. That is not to say that simplistic distortion is inevitable.

But good popularizing demands that one set aside many complexities in order to offer a clear, coherent statement of the central issues. That easily frustrates the popularizerâ&#x20AC;&#x201C;who is also a scholarâ&#x20AC;&#x201C;not to mention the scholarly critics who are not popularizers!

Fourth, the popularizer runs the danger of losing touch with his or her field of scholarly expertise.

This is not inevitable. It depends on the relative amounts of time one puts into the two areas and also on how closely connected oneâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s scholarship and popular writing are. In my case, as a Reformation historian there was little direct connection. In the early years after grad school, I managed to publish two scholarly books and a few articles on the Reformation. But ten years later, when asked to write an encyclopedia article on Karlstadt, it took only about ten minutes to conclude that I had neither the time nor the interest in spending the month or two of research needed to catch up on the scholarship enough to accept the invitation. I declined, with a twinge of regret, realizing that was the end of my work in an area to which I had devoted at least five years of my life.

Recommendations and Conclusions Let me end with a few recommendations and conclusions based on my personal effort to combine scholarship, popularizing and activism.

Recommendations: 1.

As much as possible, do research and write a scholarly piece on a topic before you publish a popular piece. (I formulated that as a personal guideline some years ago, but I have not been able, or at least have not taken the time, to do it consistently.)

2.

Since popularizing usually requires interdisciplinary knowledge, develop friends who are experts in the relevant fields and listen carefully to their advice without being intimidated by them.

3.

Get expert, interdisciplinary help whenever you can whether via grants, a graduate assistant, a collaborative scholarly project, or at least friends who are expert in other disciplines.

4.

Accept the fact that you cannot read all the relevant literature,

but study carefully a short selection of the best publications–and be sure you read authors from all the major competing approaches to the topic.

5.

Make modest claims, acknowledge your weaknesses, and be ready to modify your position when further data warrant that.

Conclusions: 1.

Not very many people should do it! I do not mean for a moment to urge most scholars to abandon a life of extended, focused scholarly research in their specific area of professional expertise. What I have tried is not for everyone.

2.

Recognize that the kinds of choices I have made have consequences. There are a few exceptions like Martin Marty, but most people cannot attempt the level of popularizing and activism I have sought and also become a widely recognized scholar.

3.

Good popularizing requires special skills: an ability to develop a broad synoptic vision; an instinct for quickly discerning the most crucial issues; a personality and mind that enjoys moving quickly from one issue to another; and the ability to write clearly and powerfully.

4.

Don’t do it unless you feel called and experience and friends confirm that you have the necessary gifts and thereby confirm that call.

5.

Some scholars must do it. Plato said that if the wise disdain the task of politics, then they must suffer being governed by fools. Somebody will write popularizing books for “the average person.” If those with scholarly training will not do it, they should not complain when those with little expertise do it badly, embarrass the church, and mislead lay people with one-sided, simplistic nonsense.

I hope that a few in the next generations of Christian scholars will pray for the gifts, develop the skills and pay the price of becoming far better popularizers and more effective activists than I have managed to be.

January /02

To the Church in North Americaâ&#x20AC;&#x201D; From One Who is Both Lover and Critic

September 22, 2010

Ronald J. Sider Professor of Theology, Holistic Ministry and Public Policy, Palmer Seminary at Eastern University President, Evangelicals for Social Action

My plea to the North American church is simple: Please, I beg you, get serious about following Jesus.

Vast segments of the self-professed Christians in North America are lukewarm, culturally conformed persons whose actual lives contradict their Christian confession. They are almost as promiscuous, almost as materialistic as their unbelieving neighbors. They commit adultery, destroy the environment, neglect the poor and file for divorce almost like their non-Christian friends.

Polls show that evangelicals get divorced at the same rate as the rest of society. Racism, sexual and physical abuse in the family, materialism and uncritical nationalism are widespread among Christians.1 People in the United States and Canada live in two of the richest societies in human history. But we spend almost all of our vast wealth on ourselves. Over the last forty years, as our incomes have increased, we have given an increasingly smaller percent of our money to the church. The materialism powerfully and constantly promoted by billions of dollars of advertising has sunk deep into our souls.

Much of the time, we live as if we believe the advertisers who tell us that joy and fulfillment come through more money and more gadgets.

Another problem, the rampant individualism in the churches, reflects that of the broader culture.

A century ago, most of our churches believed and practiced (to some degree at least) mutual accountability. It was assumed that Christians’ thinking and behavior should be shaped by the mutual discernment of the body of believers as they prayed and listened to the Scriptures together. When I joined my local Brethren in Christ church in Ontario about 1950, I promised as part of the membership liturgy to practice Matt. 18:15ff. and submit to church discipline. Today, most Christians assume that how they spend their money or act sexually is nobody else’s business. The church has no right to specify and require moral standards for its members.

Whether the issue is sex and marriage or money, justice and concern for the poor, vast numbers of Christians simply ignore what Jesus taught. A widespread lukewarmness pervades many churches.

People sing the songs and repeat the right words, but their actions suggest that Jesus’ teaching is not really very important to them.

To some extent, of course, this has always been a problem throughout church history. The temptation to water down Jesus’ radical teaching, to slowly conform to surrounding culture, has always been powerful. And Christians have regularly manufactured rationalizations for their failure to follow Jesus—whether the issue was sharing with the poor, loving their enemies, or keeping their marriage vows. But repeated failure is no excuse for disobedience.

Already in the first century, the problem appeared. In the letter to the church in Laodicea, John condemns their lukewarm Christianity. And his response shows how seriously God takes nominal Christianity. God, who prefers that they be cold rather than lukewarm, intends “to spit you out of my mouth” (Rev. 3:16).

Perhaps that is what has happened to European Christianity in the last one hundred years. For over fifteen hundred years, Europe was the continent where Christian faith was most widely embraced.

Today, only about five percent of the people in Europe go to church. In spite of remaining vestiges of a former time of more vital Christian faith, Europe is overwhelmingly secular. I worry that the same thing

1

See Chapter One of my Scandal of the Evangelical Conscience (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2005).

1

may happen in North America in the next fifty years. Canada is already well down the way on that path.

Unless the lukewarmness is reversed, the United States will surely follow.

That tragedy, however, need not occur. All we need to do to prevent it is to get serious about believing in and following Jesus.

I dream that the North American church would do that. Let me sketch the outlines of that dream—a quick overview of what I hope and pray will happen in the North American church in the next fifty years.

At the center of my dream is that in new and powerful ways, large numbers of Christians would truly understand the biblical Christ and unconditionally surrender their lives to Him. Something utterly amazing happened in a little corner of the Roman Empire two thousand years ago. A Jewish carpenter claimed to be the long expected Messiah, got crucified for his radical social views and blasphemous claims, and then was reported to have risen from the dead. Equally astounding was that rigorously monotheistic Jews (the least likely people in the first century world to say that a Nazarene carpenter was true God) almost immediately began telling everyone that Jesus was God—the one to whom every knee should bow. Apparently the only possible explanation for the amazing events of Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection was for strict Jewish monotheists like Saul of Tarsus to conclude that Jesus was truly God in the flesh.

Also centrally important was their understanding of the implications of the fact that Jesus was the long expected Messiah. The Messianic kingdom—when sins would be forgiven in a new way and justice and peace would prevail on the earth—had visibly and powerfully broken into our history in the work of the Nazarene carpenter. In the power of the Risen Jesus and the Holy Spirit he had left with them, Jesus’ disciples were now able to live out Jesus’ radical kingdom ethics, sharing with the poor, loving enemies and keeping marriage vows. Jesus’ radical new community, the church, was a visible proof that Jesus’ Messianic kingdom had already begun and that Jesus would keep his promise to complete the victory over Satan and restore all creation to wholeness at his return.

As a result, the early church (in spite of failure) truly lived like Jesus, challenging the status quo in radical ways. The church was an astonishing new community where the rich shared with the poor. Jews accepted Gentiles, masters treated their Christian slaves as brothers and sisters in Christ, and men embraced an astonishing new equality for women.

I hope and pray that tens of millions of North American Christians will rediscover this full biblical Christ—confessing the Nazarene carpenter and resurrected Lord as true God and true man and inaugurator of the Messianic kingdom. As a result, they surrender every corner of their lives to this glorious God and Savior daring in the power of the Spirit to live now his radical kingdom ethics.

Second, I hope and dream that vast numbers of Christians will become far more profoundly biblical in their thinking. George Barna has discovered that only a small fraction of today’s confessing Christians have a deep understanding of biblical teaching. He also shows how profoundly shaped they are by societal relativism, especially post-modernism. Christians know that Christ is the way, the truth, and the life. Jesus’ story and teaching are not one of many equally valid (“true”) ways to view the world.

They are the truth about reality. Post modernism’s radical relativism fundamentally undermines Christian faith and practice. We need to recover John’s teaching that orthodoxy (right theology) and orthopraxis (right practice) are equally important (I John 2:22-25 and 3:4-10). Only a massive return to

2

deep biblical understanding that in turn nurtures a vigorous biblical theology and faithful biblical living can reverse the tide of surging secularism in North America.

Third, I dream of a revitalized North American church where the typical congregation embraces holistic ministry, combining evangelism and social action so they love the whole person the way Jesus did. For much of the twentieth century, there was a ghastly division in the church between Social Gospel folk who majored on societal peace and justice and evangelicals who focused almost entirely on evangelism. In the last few decades, thank God, evangelicals have rediscovered the biblical mandate to seek economic justice and care for creation. God bless today’s younger Christians who have social action in their DNA. But I worry about whether they are losing the biblical balance: Do they care as much about leading non-Christians to the Savior as they do about overcoming poverty and environmental degradation?

I dream of a time when the typical congregation each year leads dozens of people to confess Christ for the first time—and at the same time is vigorously engaged correcting injustice, working for peace, and restoring the air, land and water for our grandchildren. I dream of a strong North American church discovering how to become true partners in mission with the majority church in the global south.

That kind of North American church would give sacrificially of its vast wealth to strengthen evangelism and foster justice everywhere in a way that truly abandoned the attitudes of Western colonialism and embraced mutual listening, learning, partnering and accountability in the one global body of Christ. That kind of global Christian partnership could dramatically reduce poverty, injustice, conflict and war, renew the environment and foster an explosive global expansion of servant evangelism.

Four, I dream of a North American church that takes the lead in combating our most pressing societal problems. Racism (including fear of immigrants who are not “just like us”) is still alive and well in our continent. There is substantial poverty here and devastating poverty abroad that we do so little to correct. And Canada and the U.S. contribute (in per capita terms) a hugely disproportionate share of the carbon emissions that will produce devastating climate change for future generations.

I dream of a North American church—not just its leaders, but tens of millions of laity—that become the vanguard to persuade our wealthy, materialistic societies to change. The richest nations in history could do vastly more to reduce poverty and disease around the world. Canada and the U.S. must take the lead in reducing carbon emissions so that the whole world will make the decisions necessary to pass on a decent world to our grandchildren. Imagine the impact on the larger society if tens of millions of North American Christians used their voices, their personal economic choices and their votes to persuade business leaders and politicians to make the necessary painful decisions.

Five, I dream of a North American church that repents of its sexual infidelity and marital disobedience and returns to biblical standards on sex and marriage. Let’s be honest. The church in my lifetime has largely followed the world in this area. Unmarried Christians are almost as sexually promiscuous as their unbelieving friends. Christians—including evangelicals—get divorced at the same rate as everyone else. Divorce has devastated the lives of our children. The result is agony and hell in our homes. This generation of parents has done to its children what no generation has ever before done to its offspring. I doubt that a decent society can long survive in North America unless we reverse the level of pain and agony in our homes.

I dream of a church that follows biblical standards. I imagine tens of millions of Christian families that live such a joyful, winsome model of wholesome family life and life-long marriage that unbelievers are attracted to Christ. I dream of churches where youth wait until marriage to enjoy God’s wonderful gift of sex, and married couples keep their marriage vows. I dream of marriages where husband and wife 3

practice mutual submission, where they place parenting above money and career, and where they seek Christian counseling to help them through the inevitable challenges and struggles that invade even the best of marriages. That way, Jesus’ way, I am convinced, is not only a biblical mandate. It is also the way to lasting joy and fulfillment. In the long run it leads to greater happiness than the life of temporary thrills that come from promiscuity. If tens of millions of Christians truly lived this way, our joyful, wholesome marriages and families would be one of our most effective means of evangelism. Christian marriages and families would be like a cozy living room heated by a warm fireplace in a frigid city frozen by a raging blizzard. Millions of hurting people would seek the same joy.

Six, I dream of a church that embraces a biblical balance in its concerns and activities—especially its political engagement. Politics is not all that important. It is not as important as evangelism. It is not the only way to change the world. On the other hand, it is significant. Political decisions in North America affect the lives of billions of people in our world. Wise political engagement is one way we love our neighbors.

But if Christians are to be engaged politically in a way that is shaped by Christ, then they must ask: What should we promote in our political engagement? Surely a crucial part of the answer is that we should be concerned with the things that God cares about. And when we turn to the Bible to see what God cares about, it is quickly clear that God cares about the sanctity of human life and economic justice, sexual integrity and peacemaking, wholesome marriages and families and creation care. A biblically balanced political agenda must be “pro-life and pro-poor, pro-family and pro-peacemaking, pro-sexual integrity and pro-creation care.” I dream of a church that does not expect too much or too little from politics and that courageously embraces a biblically balanced agenda even when some parts of that agenda displease significant segments of the larger society.

Finally, I dream of a North American church that dramatically overcomes the ghastly church divisions that have sapped its strength for centuries. Not very long ago, Protestant, Catholic and Orthodox Christian leaders said very awful things about each other. And we virtually never cooperated or even talked to each other.

Our divisions make a farce of Jesus’ last prayer in John 17. Jesus prayed that his followers would be one, that they would be brought “to complete unity,” “so that the world may believe that you have sent me” (vv. 20-23). Rather than drawing non-Christians to our Lord, our divisions and battles have caused people to turn away in disgust.

I wish I knew how to resolve the major theological disagreements among Christians today. I do not, although I believe we must keep working at that. But in the meantime, we must put far more emphasis on where we agree than on where we disagree. Protestants, Catholics, and Eastern Orthodox (at least those who still affirm their historic creeds) all believe that Jesus is true God and true man, that our one God is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, that Jesus’ death is the only way to salvation, that Jesus rose bodily from the dead, that he will return someday to complete the victory over sin, injustice and death, and that the Bible is God’s unique, special, fully authoritative revelation. That represents a lot of common ground.

Furthermore, if we look at recent major political agendas of evangelical, Catholic, and Orthodox Christians, one also sees a great deal of common ground on public policy. They are all pro-life and propoor, pro-family and pro-peacemaking, pro-sexual integrity and pro-creation care. Of course there are differences. But the common ground is huge.

4

I dream of a North American church that discovers in dramatic new ways how to focus primarily on what we have in common among Evangelical, Catholic, and Orthodox Christians. That kind of church would work together sharing the Gospel and shaping society far more than we do. That kind of church would grieve over our continuing divisions and search vigorously for ways to transcend our ongoing disagreements. That kind of church would—by its growing unity—convince many unbelievers to embrace our Lord.

My friends, that is the church I long for and dream about. And I think that at its core my central longing is finally that the Christians—vast numbers of Christians—become deeply serious about following the full biblical Christ.

The contemporary Christian song (inspired by Celtic Christianity) puts it well: Jesus, be the center, Be our source, Be our light, Jesus Jesus, be the center, Be our hope, Be our song, Jesus Be the fire in our hearts, Be the wind in our sails, Be the reason that we live, Jesus, Jesus Jesus, be our vision, Be our path, Be our guide, Jesus.

5

TOWARD AN EVANGELICAL POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY

Ronald J. Sider

Professor of Theology and Culture, Eastern Seminary President, Evangelicals for Social Action

December 4, 1998

In the last few years, evangelicals have had more political influence in the U.S. than at any time in this century. But we are not certain what to do with it. Unless we find out, we will squander an historic opportunity to nudge this society toward moral renewal and justice for all.

To be sure, there are many evangelical voices loudly promoting political agendas.

But the voices are often confused, contradictory and superficial. Evangelicals lack anything remotely similar to Catholicism's papal encyclicals and episcopal pronouncements on social and political issues that have provided Roman Catholics with a careful, integrated foundational framework for approaching each concrete political decision. (This deficiency, as Mark Noll points out, is one important aspect of the "scandal of the evangelical mind.") On the other hand, when evangelicals have acted politically, we have usually jumped into the political fray without doing our theoretical, theological homework. That our confused, superficial activity has had little lasting impact should not surprise us.

If that is to change, we urgently need to develop a careful systematic political philosophy to guide and sustain our activism. That, of course, is a task requiring years, indeed decades of communal work. Here, I want briefly first to illustrate some problems that arise because we lack an evangelical political philosophy; second, to outline how I try to move from a biblical normative framework and careful societal analysis to a political philosophy; and third, to point to a few ways to move forward.

Some may object to my assertion that we lack an evangelical political philosophy by pointing to the fact that Reformed, Lutheran, and to a lesser extent, Anabaptist evangelicals all have developed systematic reflection on politics. One thinks, for example, of the marvelous Kuyperian tradition of political philosophy that James Skillen articulates so well.

Careful political reflection within each of these evangelical traditions is very helpful for our work. But I do not think it is adequate to guide evangelical political engagement today and tomorrow. Why? There are a large number of evangelicals in this country and in many countries around the world who represent a vast array of different theological and ecclesiastical traditions. The Pentecostals, Wesleyans, AfricanAmericansâ&#x20AC;&#x201C;to name a fewâ&#x20AC;&#x201C;are not about to fully embrace a Reformed political philosophy even though they are glad to learn from Abraham Kuyper. But all these evangelicals from a vast array of traditions have some common sense of identity as evangelicals and to some extent want to work together on many things, including politics, in spite of their theological differences. In order to do that effectively, they need to embrace at least a common set of principles for a political philosophy.

PRESENT CONFUSION It is not hard to illustrate the way the absence of a foundational political philosophy leads evangelical political activists to rush off madly in all directions. (In the early years of Moral Majority, according to Ed Dobson, it was often â&#x20AC;&#x153;ready, fire, aim.â&#x20AC;?)

Take the area of moral decay. Virtually all Christians, and certainly all evangelicals, agree both that serious moral decay threatens this society and also that religious communities are the only place to look for that radical spiritual conversion that transforms persons and that such communities are the primary moral teachers of the virtues that decent societies require. Some evangelicals think the solution is a constitutional amendment to restore prayer in the schools . Others want constitutional, or at least legislative, action to guarantee equal benefits to adherents of all religious views.

And other evangelicals think both of the previous proposals would violate the First Amendment and destroy both church and state.

Or consider evangelical pronouncements on the role of government. Sometimes, when attacking government programs they dislike, evangelical voices adopt libertarian arguments that would preclude almost all government activity to promote economic justice ("Helping the poor is a task for individuals and churches, not the government").

Then when the issues change to abortion, family, euthanasia, and pornography, the same people loudly demand vigorous government action. There might be a good case to be made for private programs in the first case and legislation in the second. But if one uses arguments in one area that run counter to one's agenda in another, one appears confused and superficial.

The absence of a consistent ethic of life leads to absurd inconsistency. Some evangelical political voices make the sanctity of human life (up to birth and just before death) the overriding issue and neglect the way poverty and smoking destroy millions.

Other evangelicals point out that racism, poverty and environmental decay all kill and yet seem little concerned with millions of abortions each year.

Some of our superficiality and confusion result from the fact that we have seldom taken the time to work out carefully the specific policy implications of biblical faith. Too often we just assume that traditional American values or the Republican (or, less often, the Democratic) Party's platform are right. Former Christian Coalition Director Ralph Reed, for example, says that when he became a committed Christian and started attending an evangelical church, "my religious beliefs never changed my views on the [political] issues to any great degree because my political philosophy was already well developed."

Without testing political agendas on the basis of biblical norms, Christians often uncritically endorse left-wing or (more often) right-wing ideological agendas.

I need not go on illustrating this basic point. Evangelical political impact today is weakened because our voices are confused, contradictory, and superficial. We contradict each other. Our agendas are shaped more by secular ideologies than divine revelation.

We have no systematic foundational framework for careful dialogue about our specific

policy differences or even for successful repudiation of extremists. And, oh, how the secular media love to publicize the worst examples such as intolerant attacks on the civil rights of gay Americans or the murder of doctors who perform abortions.

Evangelicals urgently need some commonly agreed upon principles of a political philosophy. It would not solve all our political problems. But it would help.

METHODOLOGY Here I want to sketch the methodology I seek to use in approaching political questions.

A.

Jesus Is Lord

The centerpiece of all genuinely Christian politics is the Lordship of Jesus Christ.

Christians believe that the Galilean champion of the poor and marginalized is the Creator of the galaxies, the Sovereign of the universe. Therefore all who believe in him seek to submit every realm of life--whether family, economics or politics--unconditionally to Christ the Lord.

Christians therefore reject the uncritical embrace of any and every secular ideology--whether right, left, "Green," libertarian, or communitarian. The Christian's starting point must be the Word of God which is revealed partially in creation, more fully in the Bible, and most completely in Jesus Christ, the Eternal Word become flesh.

Founding political engagement on ideologies of left or right rather than Christ is fundamentally un-Christian.

B.

Four Components

Starting with the Lordship of Christ, however, does not instantly provide detailed political guidance on specific policy issues. Nor does citing specific biblical texts instantly solve complex political questions. Serious Christian political engagement must recognize the complexity and ambiguity of political decisions. Every political judgment rests finally on a normative framework on the one hand and careful study of society and the world on the other. It is helpful to distinguish four different, interrelated components of every political decision: 1) a normative framework; 2) a broad study of society and the world; 3) a political philosophy; and 4) detailed social analysis on specific issues.

1.

Normative Framework. If one's political activity is to be genuinely Christian, then the guiding norms for one's politics must come from the core of one's faith. Since biblical faith teaches that some sense of the true and good is embedded in the human conscience, common wisdom (call it natural law if you like) can offer some guidance. Some Christians, especially Roman Catholics, believe that it is still possible to derive major input for one's normative framework from general revelation. My own inclination is to think that since the Fall has deeply clouded the understanding of God's law written on all hearts, general revelation by itself cannot be the primary source of the Christian's normative framework for political engagement. For clarity, therefore, I turn to the

revealed truth of the Scriptures.

Discovering relevant biblical norms for specific political issues is not, however, a matter of simple proof-texting. The Bible is full of commands, stories, proverbs--in short, a wide variety of materials written over many centuries. To develop a fully biblical perspective on political issues, we need two things: a) a biblical view of the world and persons (I call this the biblical story); b) an understanding of biblical teaching related to many concrete issues--for example, the family or economic justice (I call these biblical paradigms). To develop a normative biblical framework, we must in principle examine all relevant biblical passages, understand each text according to proper principles of exegesis, and then formulate a comprehensive summary of all relevant canonical material. The most sweeping comprehensive summary would deal with the biblical story.

The other comprehensive summaries (or biblical paradigms) would cover things such as the poor, the family, work, justice, the dignity of persons, etc.

2.

Broad Study of Society and the World. By itself, however, the biblical framework is insufficient. Nothing in the Bible talks explicitly about the pros and cons of a market economy or multi-national corporations or the impact of five billion people on the natural environment around them.

In addition to a normative framework, we need a broad, comprehensive study of our world. That study takes many forms. It includes reflection on the historical development of society, the economy, political systems, etc. (As finite, historical beings, we come to see some things more clearly as history unfolds.) It also includes, in principle, detailed, comprehensive socio-economic, political analysis of everything relevant to any particular political question.

This careful study becomes central at two stages of analysis. One's analysis of the history of economics, politics, etc., helps to shape one's political philosophy (see B.3.).

For example, as the Marxist experiment worked itself out in the course of the twentieth century, it became more and more clear not only that Marxist philosophy contradicted the biblical view of persons but also that in practice Marxism led to economic inefficiency and political totalitarianism. Similarly, it is becoming increasingly clear that substantial injustice accompanies the functioning of today's market economies. Detailed social analysis of everything relevant to a particular politician or piece of legislation is also crucial (see B.4.).

3.

Political Philosophy. In addition to a biblical framework and a broad study of society and the world, Christians engaged in politics also need a political philosophy. It is simply impossible, every time one wants to make a political decision, to spend days (actually years) reviewing the mountains of relevant biblical material and complex studies of society. We need a framework, a road map, a handy guide--in short, a political philosophy. But we dare not adopt our political philosophy uncritically from some nonChristian source. It must emerge from our normative biblical framework and painstaking,

extensive socio-economic, political analysis.

4.

Detailed Social Analysis on Specific Issues. Even after a Christian has a political philosophy shaped by both a normative biblical framework and careful study of society and the world, one still needs to do painstaking, detailed social analysis on everything relevant to a particular legislative proposal or a specific election. Two people could, in principle, have identical normative frameworks, identical historical analyses of modern society and identical political philosophies and still disagree on whether or not, for example, to raise the minimum wage. Why? Because they rely on different economic analyses of the actual effects of raising the minimum wage. The only way to make progress on settling such a disagreement is to go back together and do further detailed economic analysis. Careful detailed social analysis of all the available information relevant to any specific political judgment is the fourth essential ingredient of any responsible Christian political engagement.

C.

Other Introductory Points

1.

Complexity and Political Necessity. The method just described is complex--in fact, far more complex than I have been able to suggest here. Every one of the four steps intersects with all the others. Our reading of history shapes the questions we put to the Bible as we seek to develop a normative framework. That framework in turn shapes everything else.

In real life, we cannot wait to make political decisions until we have completed all the study that is desirable. We must make decisions based on our best current understanding and then keep open to further insight and information.

2.

Cooperation and Humility. The kind of study required for faithful Christian political engagement is far too complex for any one individual. We need communal activity, teams of scholars and activists, and organizations and networks working together to develop a common vision and agenda. For successful Christian political engagement, then, we need groups of Christians who can integrate a normative biblical framework, study of society and world, a political philosophy (derived from the former two ingredients) and detailed social analysis as they all approach every major issue of contemporary political life. That means working out concrete public policy proposals on everything from welfare reform to family policy to peacemaking in Bosnia.

Knowing the complexity of such political judgments and the possibility of mistakes at every step, we must always hold our specific political conclusions with great humility and tentativeness. But we should dare to advocate boldly for specific policies because we have sought to ground our specific conclusions in a biblical framework and responsible social analysis even as we invite friend and foe alike to help us improve our analysis of

both the Scriptures and society at every point.

3.

Resolving Disagreements. It would help immensely to reduce political disagreements among Christians if we would be more precise about where we disagree. It is unhelpful to confuse a disagreement over the proper interpretation of Matthew 25 with lack of compassion for the poor or disagreement over the relative merits of more or less government intervention in market economies. To the extent that we can be precise about exactly where we disagree, we can make more progress in overcoming our differences.

4.

Common Language. In a pluralistic society one additional crucial step is essential.

Many citizens have no interest at all in political proposals advocated on the basis of a biblical framework. Therefore we must develop a common language grounded in the common good of all citizens when we take our specific proposals into the public realm. We must try to develop reasons for our policies that are intelligible and convincing to all people, not just Christians.

5.

The Starting Point: The Christian Community. It is absolutely crucial, however, that Christians first articulate and develop their political agenda and concrete proposals within the Christian community on the basis of biblical norms. If we do not, we will end up adopting secular norms and values and their corresponding political ideologies. The result will be a compromised, often fundamentally un-Christian, political engagement.

That is exactly what has happened with many Christians in politics. Too many Christians have uncritically adopted left-wing or right-wing politics. The result has been a subChristian religious right that correctly championed the family and the sanctity of human life, but neglected economic justice for the poor, uncritically endorsed American nationalism, ignored environmental concern for God's creation, and neglected to struggle against racism. Equally sub-Christian has been a religious left that rightly defended justice, peace and the integrity of creation but largely forgot about the importance of the family and sexual integrity, uncritically endorsed Marxism, the sexual revolution, and almost everything championed under the banner of gay rights, overlooked the fact that freedom is as important as justice, and failed to defend the most vulnerable of all, the unborn and the very old.

This essay is written first of all for the Christian community. Therefore, it first outlines a normative biblical framework, and then sketches a political philosophy. Little attention is given to developing the common language for advocating these policies in the larger pluralistic society--although that is also an essential task.

NORMATIVE BIBLICAL FRAMEWORK

A.

The Biblical Story.

The biblical story provides an essential framework for Christian political thought.

The entire created order is good and precious because it comes from the hand of a loving God. Persons created in the image of God are called to a servant-like stewardship of the rest of the Creator's handiwork. Tragically, humanity rebelled against God and the result is selfish persons, twisted social relationships and institutions and even a groaning, disordered creation. Unwilling to forsake fallen humanity, however, the Creator began a long historical process of salvation to restore a right relationship among God, persons, and the creation around them. At the center of that redeeming grace is Jesus Christ, Nazarene Carpenter and Eternal Word, who models perfect humanity, atones for our sins, and rises from the dead to break the power of evil. History is moving toward the Risen Lord's return when all things will be restored to wholeness. This biblical story provides a foundation for thinking about the nature, dignity, and destiny of persons, the status of the non-human world, the importance of the historical process, and the ultimate meaning of all things.

From this biblical story as well as all the other relevant biblical material, we can develop comprehensive biblical summaries or paradigms of specific topics that are especially relevant to politics. The following are some of the most important.

B.

Biblical Paradigms.

1.

The Special Dignity and Sanctity of Every Human Being Every person--and only human beings--are made in the image of God, called to stewardship of the nonhuman creation, made to find fulfillment only when rightly related to God, neighbor, the earth, and self, summoned to respond in freedom to God's invitation of salvation, and invited to live forever in the presence of God. We must act on the belief that from the moment of conception, we are dealing with human life. No extended biblical passage explicitly teaches that; none denies it. A number of texts use words for the unborn that are normally applied to those who have been born. For nineteen centuries, the Christian church has been overwhelmingly opposed to abortion. Modern science now demonstrates with astounding detail that from the moment of conception, a genetically distinct human being with a continuous biological development exists. If one is uncertain whether this developing fetus is a human being, one should adopt this as a working assumption. To do otherwise would be like shooting blindly into a darkened theater with the justification that we cannot know whether we will hit empty seats or murder innocent persons. The directly intended taking of innocent human life--whether in abortion or euthanasia--is wrong.

2.

Freedom of Belief.

Throughout biblical history, God gives persons enormous freedom to respond in obedience or rebellion, unbelief or faith to God. Jesus' parable of the wheat and tares shows that God chooses to allow this freedom to persons until the final judgment. Therefore, religious freedom is an essential element of a good society.

3.

The Family. Strong, stable families (persons related by blood, marriage, or adoption) are essential for a good society. Keeping marriage vows, accepting God's design that sexual intercourse be reserved for a man and a woman united in life-long marriage covenant, and valuing singles in the extended family are all important aspects of strengthening the family.

4.

Justice. The two key Hebrew words for justice (mishphat and sedaqah) are used both to call for just courts and just economic arrangements.

Fair courts require honest witnesses and impartial justice which is not biased toward rich or poor.

Fair economic arrangements require--as the Old Testament treatment of the land (the basic capital in an agricultural society) shows--an arrangement where all families and persons have access to the productive resources needed to earn a decent living and be dignified participating members of society. Sometimes, of course, wrong personal choices rightly result in the loss of these productive resources for a time, but God does not want that to continue forever. Frequently, too, according to the Bible, powerful oppressive people seize these resources from the poorest. Justice requires restoration of equitable arrangements where all have the opportunity to work and thus obtain a generous portion of the necessities of life.

In addition, those who are unable to work and provide for themselves must be cared for by their family and the larger community.

5.

A Special Concern for the Poor. Hundreds of biblical texts declare God's special concern for the poor and demand that God's people imitate God's concern. One crucial measure of how obedient people judge societies and policies is by what they do to the poorest, weakest and most marginalized. This special concern to strengthen the poorest is not a bias toward the poor but rather a concern for equal justice for everyone.

6.

Work. Work is essential to the dignity of human beings who are called to be coshapers of history with God. Every able person has the responsibility to work and people have the obligation to structure society so that every person can work in a way that respects human dignity and earns a decent living.

7.

Peacemaking. Christians look forward to the time when "nation shall not lift up sword against nation neither shall they learn war anymore". Until the Lord returns, unfortunately, persons persistently resort to wars and rumors of wars. Many Christians believe they should, as the lesser of two evils, engage in just wars for the sake of preserving some order and peace. Other Christians believe that killing is always contrary to the teaching of Christ and that he calls us to overcome our enemies with suffering love rather than the sword. But all agree that Jesus' words "Blessed are the peacemakers" are urgent in our time.

8.

Individuality and Community. Biblical faith holds together both the inestimable value of each person and each person's freedom to shape their own life and also the fact that persons are made for community and only achieve wholeness in right relationship with others in the family and the larger society.

9.

Rulers. God ordains rulers both to restrain evil and promote good. In biblical thought, the justice which God calls the king to do (Psalm 72:1-4, 12-14) includes nurturing both fair courts and economic systems that strengthen the poor.

God stands far above every political ruler. No politician or government has ultimate authority. The story of Naboth's vineyard demonstrates the rights of individual families over against the king. When the king defied God's law, the prophet challenged and condemned them. Everyone and everything, including rulers and government, have only a limited authority which is subordinate to the Divine Sovereign.

POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY The Bible does not prescribe any particular political philosophy. Political philosophies emerge as people in community over a period of time integrate a normative framework and careful study and reflection on historical experience. As long as we understand our political philosophy as a useful guide (to be improved by further normative reflection and social analysis) rather than an unchanging dogma, it can be a helpful tool for navigating complex political decisions.

The following components of a political philosophy are, I hope, consistent with biblical revelation and rigorous social analysis.

A.

Democratization and Decentralization of Power

There is both a positive and a negative reason for decentralizing all forms of power. Each person is called to exercise her creation mandate and become a co-worker with God in shaping history. If a small elite makes most decisions, the majority cannot exercise their God-given mandate. Negatively, as Lord Acton pointed out, power tends to corrupt and absolute power tends to corrupt absolutely. Sinful people in a fallen world will almost always use unchecked centralized power to benefit themselves unfairly and oppress others. Therefore to avoid totalitarianism and injustice, power must be decentralized.

The principle of subsidiarity in Catholic social teaching rightly stresses that other things being equal, activity should be undertaken by a lower level of government or by a smaller societal institution rather than a higher. At the same time, it must be clearly recognized that some things can only be done (or at least done well) in a more centralized way. Careful analysis is needed in each situation.

B.

Democracy

A concern for human rights, individual freedom, and the decentralization of power all lead to a democratic political order. When freedom of speech, secret voting and universal suffrage exist, people--at least in theory--have the political power to shape society for the benefit of the majority. Separating legislative, administrative and judicial functions and balancing national, state and local governmental realms also decentralize power.

C.

Non-Governmental Institutions

A large group of institutions intermediate between the individual and government decentralize power and provide smaller contexts for human communities to flourish.

These include the family, the church, the media, the schools, the economy, and a host of smaller voluntary associations. These intermediate centers of power provide a check on governmental power and thus are a significant foundation of freedom.

D.

Private Ownership and a Market Economy

The history of the twentieth century has shown clearly that when the state owns and controls most of the economy, economic and political power is so centralized that totalitarianism is almost guaranteed. Genuinely decentralized private ownership, on the other hand, nurtures free individuals and serves as a counter balance to political power.

Determining prices and production via supply and demand has also proven to be far more efficient than central planning.

Huge privately-owned corporations, of course, can also become centers of enormous economic power. When the same corporations own the media and provide most of the funding for election campaigns, economic and political power is again dangerously centralized.

A concern for justice and freedom demands a continuing vigilance against all forms of centralized economic power and constant effort to strengthen smaller centers of economic life including family-owned farms and businesses, cooperatives, and widespread home ownership.

E.

Religious Freedom and Church/State Relations.

The first amendment's prohibition against the government's establishing any official religion or preventing its free exercise is a crucial aspect of a society that truly respects human dignity and individual freedom. Religious freedom is a gift from God, not the state. Government can only acknowledge and defend it.

Avoiding established religion, however, does not mean that religious expression is banished to the private sphere. Everyone, including religious people, should be free to develop and state the implications of their deepest convictions for public policy. Faith-

based institutions have a long and venerable history of engagement in education, health care, and social welfare. When government adopts programs to enable the voluntary sector to serve the public good in these areas, there should be no discrimination in eligibility on account of religion, nor should there be exclusionary criteria that force these providers to engage in self-censorship or to otherwise abandon their religious character.

F.

Human Rights

The right to life and freedom are inalienable because they come from God, not government. Government should recognize and protect freedom of religion, speech, and political activity.

G.

Family

Government rightly recognizes and favors the family (those related by blood, marriage and adoption) and especially the nuclear family (wife, husband and children) with its larger circle of extended family (grandparents, etc.) as an essential element in a stable society. The family, not government, has the primary responsibility for raising children. Religious institutions can do far more than government to strengthen the family, but government should do what it can. That includes discouraging (although not preventing) divorce and sexual promiscuity and recognizing that children are best served when they live with both of their parents. It also includes not broadening the definition of marriage to include gay partners and not defining family as any two or more people cohabiting. Government rightly offers tax and other benefits that favor marriage rather than cohabitation or divorce.

H.

Care for Creation and a Sustainable Planet

Responsible care for creation flows from a biblical worldview. We face a longterm environmental crisis. Utilitarian attitudes must be balanced by a recognition of the intrinsic worth of all God's creation and human responsibility to act as God's faithful stewards. Human beings have far more worth than plants or animals. But very seldom, if ever, do we have to choose between taking a human life and destroying an endangered species. Usually it is a choice between growing affluence and obliterating the handiwork of the Creator.

We must aim to develop sustainable economic practices that reduce the stress on natural systems and make it possible for us to pass on a lovely, sustainable planet to our descendants. The needs of the poor and most vulnerable must be central in all environmental decisions; the rich must pay the major cost of reducing environmental damage. We must encourage alternative sources of energy that decrease our reliance on non-renewal sources. We must balance the needs of workers and the environment.

I.

The Role of Government Government should both restrain evil and promote the common good. Nurturing

an economic order where everyone, especially the poorest, has the resources to earn a decent living is a central concern of good government. Government is responsible for providing the legal and social framework in which the other institutions in society can flourish. Government should carefully strengthen rather than replace society's intermediate institutions when they experience trouble.

What should be legislated and what not? Why should there be laws against something like racial discrimination in the sale of housing and not against an act of adultery? The following considerations are relevant: 1) Individuals should normally be free to harm themselves (e.g., get drunk regularly at home) but not be free to harm others (drive while drunk); 2) laws must be enforceable in a way that does not undermine other important values (e.g., even if it were good in spite of the first principle, to have a criminal penalty for adultery, it would be impossible to enforce such a law without the kind of police state that would destroy freedom); 3) laws have a teaching function--to some extent people think (wrongly) that what is legal is moral.

J.

Work and Workers

Since work is essential to human dignity, every able-bodied person should have the opportunity to work at a job that pays a living wage that can support a family. An unemployment rate that denies the dignity of work to people other than those properly in transition from one job to another is immoral and socially destructive. Conversely, people who can work have an obligation to do so in order to earn their living. Welfare policies should assist those who cannot care for themselves but dare not discourage work and responsibility.

Workers have a right to safe working conditions, a living wage and reasonable job security. The legal right of workers to organize unions counterbalances corporate economic power, encourages justice, and nurtures dignity and self-respect.

K.

The Priority of the Poor

Poverty has many causes. Those who are poor because they are unable to provide for themselves should be given a decent living by their family and/or other nongovernmental groups where possible and the government where necessary. Those who are poor because of personal irresponsibility should suffer appropriate consequences.

Those, however, who are poor--whether through accident of birth, or the neglect or oppression of others--because they lack the education and the capital to be productive, self-sufficient members of society should be empowered by both private institutions and government.

Justice at least demands that every person has equal opportunity to acquire the basic capital (whether land, money or education) that will enable that person to earn a decent living and be a dignified participating member of society. Strengthening the poor by providing such opportunity should be a central concern of government. Every significant governmental decision should be judged by its impact on the poorest.

L.

A Consistent Ethic of Life

The first and most basic human right is the inviolable right to life of every human being. The first and most basic responsibility of civil law is to ensure that this right is recognized and protected.

Abortion involves the direct, intentional and violent taking of human life. No law which legitimizes the direct killing of innocent human beings through abortion can be just. Therefore, we must work for the legal protection of the unborn, and oppose all public funding of abortions.

At the same time, we must develop a wide range of alternatives to abortion--both to reduce the evil of abortion and also in recognition that two people are directly involved, not just one. A caring society will surround women with unwanted pregnancies with love and concrete support including financial assistance and better adoption alternatives.

Euthanasia--the direct killing of the aged and infirm either with or without their consent--is wrong. That does not mean that it is immoral to refuse or withhold extraordinary medical treatment when death is imminent or inevitable. But we dare not blur the distinction between on the one hand allowing a person to die and on the other killing a person.

Concern for a consistent ethic of life does not end with abortion and euthanasia.

Life does not begin at conception and end at birth. Tens of millions of people die unnecessarily each year of starvation and malnutrition. Tobacco kills millions of people prematurely each year. Capital punishment kills human beings. We should seek to protect the sanctity of human life wherever it is threatened and violated.

That is not to deny a significant moral difference between abortion and death from lung cancer caused by smoking. The direct, intentional taking of innocent human life in abortion, euthanasia, and genocide is morally more grave than the indirect, unintentional taking of human life in starvation or death from smoking. But all are wrong and all reflect disregard for the inestimable value of human life. Respect for human life is a seamless garment. A consistent ethic of life opposes and seeks to reduce not only abortion and euthanasia but also capital punishment, starvation and cigarette-induced cancer.

M.

Peacemaking

Those who threaten society, from within or without, must be restrained.

Historically, that has usually been done through lethal force as a last resort. Historically, too, it is true both that vast numbers of people have been killed and also that a variety of

non-violent methods of conflict resolution have successfully replaced lethal force. The courts, for example, replaced dueling. In the twentieth century, Gandhi, King and a host of others successfully used nonviolent techniques to end oppression and seek justice.

Christians today disagree over the extent to which nonviolent models of conflict resolution can successfully replace most or all use of lethal force. But all agree that the search for nonviolent alternatives must be greatly strengthened. Wherever possible, nonviolence must replace lethal force.

TOWARDS AN EVANGELICAL POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY I have tried to sketch, very briefly, my own developing understanding of some of the principles for an evangelical political philosophy. But I am not content simply to have individual thinkers work on this in their academic and professional colloquia!

I think evangelical leaders in this country need to come together and try to hammer out a declaration–let’s call it “Principles for an Evangelical Political Philosophy”–that could be endorsed across a broad range of evangelical traditions. I think the same needs to happen in every country where substantial numbers of evangelicals exist and are engaged in politics. It also needs to happen at a global level so that people from other countries can help us overcome our one-sidedness and blind spots.

How might we arrive at such a declaration that would help us? It would be foolish to try to sketch a detailed process for developing a document on principles for an evangelical political philosophy widely embraced by a broad cross section of evangelicals in the United States. The venture is enormously difficult. Success can only come at the end of a lengthy journey that will inevitably involve detours and land mines.

Pilgrims on the journey will need to improvise at each stage.

However, three things, at least, seem clear to me. The process must include a wide range of evangelical voices; the goal should be limited; and the engagement of major evangelical gatekeepers is indispensable.

If the result is to be of any lasting significance, then we must involve a wide range of evangelical voices. I could sit down today and sketch an evangelical political philosophy that many members of Evangelicals for Social Action would largely endorse.

Gary Bauer could do the same for Family Research Council. What would help, if it could be developed, is a broad framework that both Gary and I, plus a wide cross section of people who identify as evangelicals, could embrace as a guide for our concrete political engagement.

Second, our goal must be limited. Not even this raving optimist supposes that we could agree on a detailed, full-blown evangelical political philosophy across the range of views that exist within the evangelical community.

For example, we do disagree, however incoherently, about the proper role of government. Therefore a comprehensive, common statement on the role of government

would be impossible. But would it not help if a broad range of evangelical voices could together reject both libertarianism and socialism and then together define some general criteria for when and how government should and should not intervene in market economies?

The same would be true in a variety of areas. It would be helpful if we could agree together on the basic parameters of a consistent pro-life position, on how to balance the free exercise and non-establishment clauses of the First Amendment, and so on. If from the beginning we agree that our goal is a limited, incomplete evangelical political philosophy that different groups can develop further in divergent ways, we might at least be able to state a basic framework that would help us overcome some of our naivetĂŠ, confusion, and disagreement.

At first glance, our task appears to be nearly impossible. Evangelicals do not have a pope or bishops who can, with some authority, articulate an evangelical political philosophy. Instead, we have a confused babel of more or less influential gatekeepers whose words are respected within their larger or smaller constituencies. Thus, the project will succeed only if leaders representing this broad spectrum within the evangelical community endorse the process and sign the resulting document.

I have no illusions that most evangelical political disagreement would disappear even if multiple miracles produced a widely accepted set of principles for an evangelical political philosophy. Finite sinners that we are, we would still argue about its implications for specific public policy proposals. A common framework, however, would help in several ways.

First, agreement on a basic framework would help us identify more common ground on specific issues, which could help us have a greater impact.

Second, only if we develop a common vision that can sustain evangelical political engagement over the long haul will we produce any lasting political change.

Third, if evangelical Protestants (I include African-Americans and theologically orthodox Christians in the older Protestant denominations) developed even the beginnings of a common political philosophy, we would be in a better position to cooperate with Catholics in shaping public life. Few potential political developments are more important. If evangelicals and Catholics learn how to cooperate, this majority could significantly reshape American politics.

That brings me to my last point. I think one of the most urgent political tasks for American Christians is for white evangelicals, Catholics, African-American and Latino Christians to discover how to work together politically around a pro-life and pro-poor, pro-family and pro-racial justice agenda. A well organized coalition of those groups could significantly reshape our public life for the better.

I see the beginnings of this kind of new coalition in several quarters. From the

liberal side, the Call to Renewal and from the conservative side the signers of â&#x20AC;&#x153;We Hold These Truthsâ&#x20AC;? have formally embraced this four-part agenda. In practice, of course, conservatives still tend to major on pro-life and pro-family issues and liberals still emphasize economic and racial justice. These one-sided approaches need to end.

I think the approach that I have sketched in this paper could help that happen. If a wide cross section of evangelical leaders prayerfully, thoughtfully sought to listen to what the Bible and historical experience tells us about principles for an evangelical political philosophy including the kind of balanced political agenda that reflects the full range of Godâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s concerns, then I believe we might be able to overcome some of our differences and work together in a way that could bless this society and the world.

12/4/98

WHAT IF WE DEFINED THE GOSPEL THE WAY JESUS DID?1

Ronald J. Sider

Professor of Theology, Holistic Ministry and Public Policy Palmer Seminary at Eastern University

1

This paper is adapted with permission from my ―What Is the Gospel?,‖ Transformation XVI (1999), pp. 31-34, and Good News and Good Works: A Theology for the Whole Gospel (Baker Books, a division of Baker Publishing Group, 1999), Chapters 3, 4.

0

Evangelicals have a problem. Many evangelicals today do not define the Gospel the way Jesus did.

If you ask evangelicals what the Gospel is, the answer of many is: ―Forgiveness of sins.‖ Or, if they have studied theology: ―Justification by faith alone.‖ Frequently, the impression is given that the core of Christian faith, the essence in comparison with which other things are less important, is forgiveness of sins.

There are two problems with this understanding. First, if the Gospel is only the forgiveness of sins, then it is a one-way ticket to heaven and you can live like hell until you get there. (One can embrace the Good News of forgiveness and still go on living the same adulterous, racist, unjust life as before.) The second problem is that forgiveness of sins is simply not the primary way Jesus defined the Gospel.

Unless Matthew, Mark, and Luke are totally wrong, all who want to preach and live like Jesus must define the Gospel as the Good News of ―the kingdom of God.‖ This phrase (or Matthew‘s equivalent, the ―kingdom of heaven‖) appears 122 times in the first three gospels— most of the time (92) on the lips of Jesus himself.

Jesus points to the kingdom as the purpose of his coming. Both his preaching and his miraculous healing are signs of the kingdom. And he sends out his disciples to announce the kingdom.

For Mark, the kingdom is the best summary of his entire gospel: ―After John was put in prison, Jesus went into Galilee, proclaiming the Good News of God. ‗The time has come,‘ he said. ‗The kingdom of God is near. Repent and believe the Good News‘‖ (Mark 1;14-15). Jesus explicitly defines his own mission in these terms: ―I must preach the Good News of the kingdom of God to the other towns also, because that is why I was sent‖ (Luke 4:43).

Jesus‘ response to John the Baptist demonstrates that Jesus viewed his preaching and healing as signs of the kingdom. In Luke 7:18-28, John‘s disciples ask whether Jesus is the ―one who was to come‖—i.e., the long-expected Messiah who will usher in the messianic kingdom of God. For his answer, Jesus points to his preaching, and his healing of the blind, the lame, and even the socially ostracized lepers. Later, in his argument with the Pharisees, he makes the same claim, insisting that his miraculous casting out of demons is visible proof that the kingdom has begun (Matt. 12:28).

When Jesus sends out his disciples, he commands them to preach and demonstrate the kingdom in the same way. ―As you go,‖ he commissions the Twelve, ―preach this message: ‗The kingdom of heaven is near.‘ ‗Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse those who have leprosy, drive out demons‘‖ (Matt. 10:7-8). The Seventy-Two disciples receive the same instructions: ―Heal the sick . . . and tell them, ‗the kingdom of God is near you‘‖ (Luke 10:9).

If anything is clear in Jesus, it is that the announcement and demonstration of the kingdom are at the very core of his message and life.

It is surely astonishing that precisely those Christians who speak most often about their 1

desire to be biblical and their passion for evangelism do not define the Gospel the way Jesus did.

That in itself would be problematic. But it is even more serious when we realize that understanding the Gospel merely as forgiveness of sins rather than as the Good News of the Kingdom of God tends to lead to more serious problems. It easily leads us to reduce salvation to an inner, spiritual relationship between the individual soul and God. It also helps promote the neglect of the social transformation (e.g., between Jew and Gentile in the early church) that is clearly part of what the New Testament means by salvation. In fact, a failure to define the Gospel the way Jesus did easily leads to cheap grace and a neglect of social ministry.

An examination of the story of Zacchaeus (Luke 19:2-10) illustrates the problem. Zacchaeus was a wicked tax collector using and abusing an unjust structure. (The Jewish people had very good reason for their intense dislike of Jewish tax collectors working for the Romans!) But when Zacchaeus meets Jesus, he returns everything taken unjustly and gives half of his goods to feed the poor. The story concludes with Jesus‘ words: ―Today salvation has come to this house. . . .‖ (NRSV) When one examines this passage carefully, one discovers that there is not a word in the text on forgiveness of sins. That is not to suggest that Jesus did not forgive his sins. The rascal surely needed it. But that is not what the text talks about. The passage describes the new, transformed economic relationships that Zacchaeus began to live out with his neighbors after Zacchaeus meets Jesus. That is what the text highlights as the salvation that Jesus brought to Zacchaeus. If the Gospel were merely forgiveness of sins, it would not make sense to ignore forgiveness completely in the text and then announce the arrival of salvation which is surely what we receive when we embrace the Gospel. On the other hand, if the Gospel is the good news of the kingdom, the Zacchaeus passage does make sense.

A careful examination of what Jesus meant by the Gospel of the kingdom of God will clarify both our theology and Christian discipleship. Jesus came, claiming to be the long expected Messiah and announcing that the Messianic reign of God was breaking into history in a special way in his person and work But what was the Messianic expectation?

There are two basic strands in the prophets‘ Messianic predictions: a vertical and a horizontal component.

Jeremiah 31:31-34 shows that right relationship with God was at the center of the Messianic hope. In the Messianic time when God makes a new covenant with Israel and Judah, God promises to ―forgive their wickedness and remember their sins no more‖ (v. 34). With forgiveness goes inner transformation because God also pledges to ―put my law in their minds and write it in their hearts‖ (v. 33). A renewed vertical relationship with God was central to the Messianic hope.

Equally important was the ringing declaration that the Messiah would restore right relationships with neighbor. ―In the last days‖ (the prophets‘ shorthand for the Messianic time), ―they will beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks‖ (Isa. 2:4). The parallel passage in Micah also foresaw a productive, just economic order: ―They shall all sit under their own vines and their own fig trees, and no one shall make them afraid‖ (Mic. 4:4; NRSV).

Not just inner hearts or individual relationships with a few neighbors but the whole social order 2

will be transformed (Isa. 42:1-4).

The prophets had long taught that God was especially concerned for the poor, weak and marginalized. Therefore it is hardly surprising that justice for the poor was central to their vision of the Messianic society. Of the Messianic shoot from the stump of Jesse, the prophet predicted: ―With righteousness he will judge the needy, with justice he will give decisions for the poor of the earth‖ (Isa. 11:4). The prophets even dared to hope for renewed relationships with the non-human creation (Isa. 11:8-9).

The early church declared Jesus to be the fulfillment of these breathtaking Messianic prophecies. Matthew 4:15-16 quotes Isaiah 9:1-2 in connection with the beginning of Jesus‘ proclamation of the coming of the Messianic kingdom. Paul refers to Isaiah 11:1 and 10 in Romans 15:12. In Luke 1:68-79, Zechariah announces that John the Baptist will prepare the way for Jesus, the Messiah. Quoting Isaiah 9:2, Zechariah points with eager anticipation to the Messiah who will ―guide our feet into the way of peace‖ (Luke 1:79). When the angels (Luke 2:14) announce Jesus‘ birth with the choral shout ―on earth, peace,‖ they simply confirm the dawning fulfillment of the prophetic vision of Messianic shalom.

Shivers of excitement must have raced through first-century Jewish listeners when Jesus announced the ringing words: ―‗The time has come,‘ he said. ‗The kingdom of God is near.

Repent, and believe the Good News.‘‖ Jesus meant two things: He meant that he was the longexpected Messiah, and he meant that the messianic age was breaking into the present.

Jesus never said the kingdom was fully present. Rather, he taught that the Messianic kingdom is already present, but is not yet complete. The account of Jesus‘ argument with the Pharisees about his power to cast out demons demonstrates that the kingdom was already present. ―If I drive out demons by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom has come upon you‖ (Matt. 12:28).

Jesus uses a past tense. The kingdom has already begun here in Jesus‘ person and work. But the kingdom is not here in its fullness. That will happen at Christ‘s return.

As in the case of the prophets, there are two aspects to Jesus‘ announcement of the Messianic kingdom of God: a vertical and a horizontal.

Entering the Kingdom: The Vertical Aspect Jesus‘ teaching differed sharply from that of his contemporaries. The Pharisees believed that the Messiah would come if all Jews would obey the law perfectly. The violent revolutionaries of the time thought that the messiah would come if all Jews would join in armed rebellion against Roman imperialism.2 Jesus‘ way was (and still is) radically different. The kingdom comes as sheer gift. We enter not by good deeds or social engineering, but only as we repent and accept God‘s forgiveness.

In parable after parable, Jesus underlined God‘s acceptance of sinners (e.g., Luke 18:9-14).

The merciful Father in heaven is like the father who forgives the prodigal son (Luke 15:11-32). It is not the self-righteous Pharisee but the greedy, oppressive tax-collector agonizing over his wickedness whom God forgives (Luke 18:9-14). Only as we come as humble children with no claims can we enter Christ‘s kingdom: ―Unless you change and become like little children, you 2

Edward Schweizer, The Good News according to Matthew (Atlanta: John Knox, 1975), 132; and John Piper, Love Your Enemies (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1979), 40-41.

3

will never enter the kingdom of heaven‖ (Matt. 18:3). When we do, we experience the boundless, eager mercy of God: ―Do not be afraid, little flock, for your Father has been pleased to give you the kingdom‖ (Luke 12:32). That same understanding of God led Jesus to die as the ransom for our sins (Matt. 20:28). Central to any biblical understanding of the kingdom is that we enter it by sheer grace and divine forgiveness. The kingdom comes as gift.

The Horizontal Aspect According to Jesus‘ message, however, that is only half of the meaning of the good news of the kingdom of God. Jesus was not a lone ranger. He was not an isolated prophet. He went around summoning people to follow him. Jesus gathered together a circle of disciples. Jesus and his disciples formed a new community that began to live in a way that was a visible model of Jesus‘ Messianic teaching.

The new reconciled relationships in Jesus‘ new community are also central to the meaning of the Gospel of the kingdom.

Jesus‘ teaching on divorce reveals a key part of the basic logic of Jesus‘ kingdom teaching on discipleship. The Mosaic law had permitted divorce (for the husband) because of sin. But that was never the Creator‘s desire. Now, as the Messianic kingdom breaks in decisively, divorce is forbidden except for one kind of situation. Now, by the power of the spirit, it is possible–not perfectly, to be sure, but in radical new ways–for Jesus‘ followers to live the way the Creator intended. A sweeping new horizontal reconciliation between husband and wife, rich and poor is possible. Why? Because the Messianic kingdom is now breaking in and the Holy Spirit is being poured out. In the power of the Spirit, Jesus‘ new Messianic community lives dramatically differently from the world.

According to Jesus, we cannot separate a right relationship with God from a right relationship to neighbor. Jesus‘ repeated linkage of God‘s forgiveness and our forgiving others underlines the point. Jesus tells the parable of the unforgiving servant (Matt. 18:21-35) to answer Peter‘s question about how often he must forgive other brothers and sisters in the community.

Peter thought seven times might do! Jesus said seventy times seven–i.e., indefinitely. That is the context for Jesus‘ powerful parable of the unforgiving servant: ―The kingdom of heaven is like a king. . .‖ (v. 23) who forgives a prominent servant millions of dollars. Incredibly that same servant instantly turns around and callously tosses one of his own obscure servants into jail for a few dollars. Furious, the king commands prison and torture for the merciless rascal. Jesus ends the story with the disturbing words: ―So my heavenly Father will also do to everyone of you if you do not forgive your brother or sister from your heart‖ (v. 35, NRSV).

Again and again Jesus repeats this point. In the Lord‘s Prayer, we ask God to ―forgive us our debts as we also have forgiven our debtors‖ (Matt. 6:12, NRSV). Immediately after the prayer, Jesus emphasizes the point in the strongest way: ―If you forgive others their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you; but if you do not forgive others, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses‖ (vv. 14-15, NRSV).

Jesus is not teaching that our good deeds earn God‘s favor. But the Creator who made us for community has decided that divine forgiveness will not forever remain with those who violate community by withholding forgiveness from the offending neighbor.

4

Challenging evils of the status quo One important thing to note about the horizontal aspect of the Gospel of the kingdom of God is that Jesus and his new Messianic community challenged the status quo at numerous points where it was wrong. Think for example of Jesus‘ teaching about rich and poor, the marginalized, women, political leaders, and the violent revolutionaries.

Rich and poor. Jesus shocked the rich with his words about sharing. He told the rich young man who came inquiring about eternal life (and, probably, membership in Jesus‘ new circle as well) that he would have to sell his vast holdings and give all his wealth to the poor. As the wealthy youth turned away sadly, Jesus added a comment that still jars all of us who are rich: ―It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God‖ (Luke 18:18-25). When another wealthy person responded in obedient repentance, he gave half of his vast riches to the poor (Luke 19:2-10). Jesus urged the rich to make loans to the poor, even if there was no reasonable hope of repayment (Luke 6:34-35). Those who do not feed the hungry and clothe the naked, he said, go to hell (Matt. 25:31-46). Jesus offered a sweeping challenge to an uncaring wealthy establishment.

The other side of this challenge to the rich was a powerful identification with the poor. Born in a stable, introduced to the agony of refugees as a child, Jesus, the wandering teacher, had no house of his own (Matt. 8:20). The poor flocked to him. He fed and healed the needy.

It is especially important to understand Jesus‘ teaching that his Messianic kingdom is especially for the poor. ―Blessed are you who are poor, for yours is the kingdom of God. Blessed are you who hunger now, for you will be satisfied‖ (Luke 6:20-21).

When John the Baptist asked if he was the Messiah, Jesus pointed to the fact that he healed the sick and preached the Gospel of the kingdom to the poor (Luke 7:21-22). The inaugural address in the synagogue at Nazareth includes the same statement about preaching to the poor (Luke 4:18). One simply does not understand Jesus‘ teaching on the kingdom unless one sees that he was especially concerned that the poor realize that the kingdom breaking into history was particularly good news for them. Our proclamation of the Gospel is simply unbiblical unless we, like Jesus, focus special attention on the poor.

The heretical neglect of the poor by many affluent Christians is a flat rejection of the Lord of the Church. If Jesus is the norm, then faithful Christian sharing of the Gospel will make the poor one major priority in such a way that the poor in the world today are as convinced as the poor in Jesus‘ day that the Gospel is fantastic news for them—precisely because Jesus‘ new kingdom community embraces the poor, welcomes them into their fellowship, and shares economically so that, in the words of Acts, ―there is no poor among them.‖ Any announcement of the Gospel that does not include Jesus‘ kind of concern for and emphasis on the poor is not the biblical Gospel.

The marginalized. Jesus‘ special concern for the poor extended to all the marginalized, weak and socially ostracized. In sharp contrast to his contemporaries, Jesus demonstrated a special interest in the disabled, children, drunkards, prostitutes and lepers (cf. Luke 7:32-50; 19:1-10). In 5

Jesus‘ day, lepers experienced terrible ostracism (Luke 17:12), living alone in awful poverty, shouting ―unclean, unclean‖ lest anyone accidentally touch them. Jesus gently touched the lepers and miraculously healed them (Mark 1:41).

From the Dead Sea Scrolls, we learn that the Essenes, a Jewish religious group of Jesus‘ day, actually excluded the disabled from the religious community. Jesus, by contrast, commands the members of his new Messianic community to invite precisely these people: ―When you give a banquet, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, the blind‖ (Luke 14:13). In the parable of the Great Banquet, Jesus repeats the lesson, teaching that his kingdom is for ―the poor, the crippled, the blind, and the lame‖ (Luke 14:21). Jesus was directly defying contemporary norms and social practices.

Women. Jesus‘ attitude toward women reflects the same sweeping challenge to the status quo. In Jesus‘ day, it was a scandal for a man to appear in public with a woman. A woman‘s word was considered useless in court. It was better to burn a copy of the Torah (the first five books of the Old Testament) than allow a woman to touch it.3 Indeed, according to one first- century statement, ―If any man teach his daughter Torah, it is as though he taught her lechery.‖ Women were excluded from most parts of the temple. Nor did they count in calculating the quorum needed for a meeting in the synagogue. A widely used prayer by Jewish males thanked God they were not Gentiles, slaves or women: ―I thank Thee Lord, that Thou hast not made me a Gentile. . . Thou hast not made me a slave. . . Thou hast not made me a woman.‖ Jesus and his new community rejected centuries of male prejudice and treated women as equals. Jesus appeared with women in public (John 4:27), and taught them theology (Luke 10:3842). He allowed a woman (Luke 7:36-50) that everybody knew was a sinner to wash his feet with her tears, wipe them with her long hair, kiss and perfume them–all in public! When Mary abandoned her traditional role cooking food to listen to Jesus‘ theology lesson, Martha objected.

But Jesus defended Mary (Luke 10:38-42).

Jesus must also have upset men with his teaching on divorce. In the first century, Jewish men could easily get a divorce. Women did not have equal privileges. Contemporary thinkers would probably have eliminated this inequality by granting women equal privileges. But that was not Jesus‘ way. Jesus insisted that God wanted a man and a woman to live in life-long faithful covenant.

In its attitude toward women, the early church continued to live Jesus‘ Messianic challenge to the status quo. Messianic prophecy had foretold that in the last days, daughters and sons, women and men would prophesy (Joel 2:28). That happened in the early church. Women prophesied (Acts 21:9; I Cor. 11:5) and corrected the theology of men (Acts 18:24-26). Liberated from the restrictions of the synagogue, women participated enthusiastically in the early church‘s worship services. Paul joyously boasted that in Christ, there is ―neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female‖ (Gal. 3:28).

One understands this incredible claim about early Christian community only when one remembers that Paul is probably referring explicitly to the common Jewish prayer quoted above where men thank God that they are not Gentiles, slaves, or women. What an astonishing upsetting 3

See C. F. D. Moule, ―The Significance of the message of the Resurrection for Faith in Jesus Christ,‖ in Studies in Biblical Theology no. 8 (London: SCM, 1968), 9.

6

of the status quo! Jesus and his new community of women and men were indeed an upside-down kingdom.

Rulers. Jesus must have infuriated Herod. When someone warned him that Herod wanted to kill him, Jesus shot back his response: ―Go tell that fox‖ (Luke 13:32). In Jesus‘ day, that word meant about the same thing as the slang use of the word ―skunk‖ does today.

In Jesus‘ time as today, rulers enjoyed dominating their subjects. Jesus was bluntly descriptive: ―You know that those who are regarded as rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them.‖ Jesus‘ kingdom model for his new community is strikingly different: ―Not so with you. Instead, whosoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first must be slave of all. For even the Son of Man did not come to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many‖ (Mark 10:41-44).

Jesus points to the cross, where he dies as the substitute for our sins, as the model for servant leadership in his new community.

Violent revolutionaries. The zealots believed that the Messiah would come if the Jewish people would all rise up in armed rebellion against the Roman imperialists. But that was not Jesus‘ way. The way of the kingdom was love–even for enemies (Matt. 5:44). ―You have heard that it was said, ‗Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.‘ But I tell you: Love your enemies, and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be children of your Father in heaven‖ (Matt. 5:43-45). In this passage, Jesus rejects the standard Jewish interpretation, which limited neighborly love to fellow Israelites. Instead, he condemns retaliation and vengeance and extends neighborly love to anyone in need, even oppressive Roman imperialists.

Jesus fit the humble, peaceful view of the Messiah that was described in Zechariah 9:9-10.

The crowds shouted Messianic slogans as Jesus made his triumphal entry into Jerusalem (Luke 19:38; Matt. 21:9). But the Messiah rides on a humble donkey, not a warhorse! Jesus‘ peaceful path to Messianic shalom was a radical alternative and direct challenge to the popular, religious revolutionaries of his day.

It is important to see that the religious establishment moved to destroy Jesus for two reasons: because of his radical socio-economic challenge to the status quo and because of his alleged blasphemy. It is quite understandable that the religious, economic, and political establishment viewed Jesus‘ attack on the status quo as highly threatening. They obviously had to change their values and actions fundamentally or get rid of this disturbing prophet. We simply misunderstand what led up to the Cross if we miss the fact that Jesus‘ execution is ―the punishment of a man who threatens society by creating a new kind of community leading a radically new kind of life.‖4 Jesus‘ theological claims also infuriated them. When he claimed divine authority to forgive sins, they objected (Mark 2:6-11). When he set his own authority above that of Moses, they were offended (Matt. 5:31-39). When he told the parable of the tenants who destroyed the master‘s vineyard and identified himself as the special Son sent by the Master (Luke 20:9-18), they began looking for a way to arrest him (v. 19). When he broke their rigid rules by healing on the Sabbath, they decided to destroy him (Matt. 12:9-14). When, at the trial, he acknowledged that he was ―the 4

John Howard Yoder, Politics of Jesus (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1972), 63.

7

Christ, the Son of the Blessed One,‖ they tore their clothes and pronounced him a blasphemer (Mark 14;62-64).

Blasphemer, social radical, and Messianic pretender. That was the charge. That is why the political and religious leadership conspired to kill him. When they forced Pilate to admit that Jesus‘ Messianic claims were a political threat to Rome (John 19:12-13), Pilate agreed to crucify him. The inscription on the Cross (King of the Jews) shows that the alleged crime was Jesus‘ Messianic claim. Roman governors regularly crucified Jewish Messianic pretenders in the first century.

In fact, Pilate and the priestly aristocracy were right. Jesus was a threat to their unjust, oppressive, unfaithful power and system. Jesus came, claiming to be the Messiah of the Jewish people. He urged the whole society to accept God‘s radical forgiveness and begin living his new kingdom values. But to do that, they would have to adopt Jesus‘ radical challenge to the way they exercised power and leadership and the way they treated the poor and marginalized. Equally serious, they would have to accept Jesus as God‘s Messiah and only Son. They preferred to kill him.

According to Jesus, the Gospel is the good news of the kingdom of God. The vertical aspect of this Gospel assures us of unconditional divine forgiveness. The horizontal aspect proclaims the fantastic news that the kingdom is now taking visible, concrete shape because Jesus‘ new community is actually beginning to live according to Jesus‘ kingdom norms. As they love the whole person the way Jesus did, challenge society at the points of its sinful rebellion, and embrace and become the instruments of grace to transform broken people, Jesus‘ disciples become a visible sign of the kingdom which is already present and will come in its fullness at Christ‘s return.

How Then Do We Communicate the Gospel of the Kingdom?

By word and deed. Jesus preached and healed. He taught and modeled. The Eternal Word become flesh was the perfect combination of word and deed.

Matthew 9:35 summarizes Jesus‘ entire public ministry under the three headings of teaching, preaching and healing: ―Jesus went through all the towns and villages, teaching in their synagogues, preaching the good news of the kingdom and healing every disease and sickness.‖ When he sent out the twelve, Jesus gave them the same holistic commission ―to preach the kingdom of God and to heal the sick‖ (Luke 9:2). Both words and wonders, both preaching and miracle, both gentle invitation and sharp confrontation, were central to Jesus‘ communication of the kingdom.

Jesus modeled what he taught. He not only announced the arrival of the Messianic time of justice and shalom for the poor and oppressed. He also fed the hungry and welcomed the socially ostracized into his new community. His diverse circle of men and women, rich and poor, crippled and well was a visible demonstration of the kingdom he announced.

In fact, the reality of Jesus‘ new redeemed community was part of the Gospel of the kingdom. To be sure, Jesus nowhere explicitly says that. Paul however does. Ephesians 3:1ff. explicitly states that the existence of the multi-ethnic church is part of the Gospel. In Ephesians 2, Paul says, Jew and Gentile are reconciled at the cross. Because both are accepted with God on 8

exactly the same basis (namely unmerited forgiveness through Christ‘s cross), there is now one new reconciled humanity of believing Jews and Gentiles. Then in Chapter 3, Paul talks about the mystery of the Gospel which he preaches. What is it? Verse 6 defines it: ―that is, the Gentiles have become fellow heirs, members of the same body, and sharers in the promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel‖ (NRSV). The new multi-ethnic church is part of the Gospel.

The Early Church and the Kingdom Most of Jesus‘ contemporaries, however, found it hard to believe that the Carpenter‘s small circle of forgiven tax collectors, prostitutes, and fishermen was truly the beginning of the glorious Messianic kingdom promised by the prophets. Jesus‘ circle was too weak and insignificant. His teaching was too demanding and costly. His claims were too presumptuous if not indeed blasphemous.

To prove his was wrong, the religious and political leaders had him crucified. But then God raised him from the dead! The Resurrection proved to the discouraged disciples that Jesus was truly the Messiah and that his messianic kingdom had begun. Pentecost confirmed it. As one reads Peter‘s sermon in Acts 2, one sees clearly that it was the raising of the crucified One and the pouring out of the Holy Spirit that convinced the early church that the Messianic age predicted by the prophets had truly begun (Acts 2:17ff.; 29ff.). Jewish Messianic hope had expected the giving of the Spirit when the Messiah came. The Messianic prophecy of Joel (Joel 2:28-29) came true at Pentecost, thus confirming Jesus‘ Messianic claim.

The New Testament uses two interesting words to express the early Christian belief that the Messianic age had truly begun even though it was not yet fully present. They are the words aparche (firstfruits) and arrabon (pledge or down payment). In I Corinthians 15:20 and 23, Paul says that Jesus resurrection is the firstfruits of the general resurrection that Jewish Messianic hope expected at the coming of the Messiah. In 2 Corinthians 1:22 and 5:5, Paul describes the Holy Spirit as a down payment or guarantee (cf. also Rom. 8:23; Eph. 1;14).

The word ―firstfruits‖ is used in the Old Testament to talk about the early harvest festival that celebrated the first arrival of the new crops (see Ex. 23;16, 19; Deut. 26:2, 10). The full harvest was not yet present, but the beginnings of the harvest had already arrived. The presence of those firstfruits caused rejoicing for they were visible, tangible evidence that the full harvest would surely come. Jesus actually rose from the dead on precisely the day when, in Jewish worship, the first ripe sheaf of the harvest was presented to the Lord.

Arrabon (downpayment or guarantee) is a loan word from the Semitic. It comes from the arena of commerce and means a deposit that pays part of a total debt and gives a legal claim for the full repayment. It is a present tangible pledge that ratifies a contract.

These words were particularly suited to express the early Christian belief that Jesus‘ life, death, resurrection and Pentecost were visible, tangible evidence that the Messianic kingdom had begun. Like the firstfruits of the harvest, the Messianic age had truly dawned. The early Christians had already tasted the powers of the age to come (Heb. 6:5). Therefore, in spite of the powerful evidence that the Old Age was still very active, the early Christians were certain that the fullness of the Messianic kingdom would surely arrive in God‘s good time.

9

The Cosmic Dimensions of the Kingdom It is crucial to understand that the kingdom expectations of the New Testament are all encompassing. The dawning kingdom that Christ will complete at his return does not pertain only to the soul or only to the church or only to individuals. It relates to persons and social structures, indeed even to the non-human creation.

It was the present reality of the already dawning Messianic kingdom that anchored this breathtaking cosmic hope of the early Christians. They dared to believe that the crucified and risen Carpenter was the key to history. They dared to believe that at his return he would complete his victory over every rule and authority, even death itself (I Cor. 15-20-26) and bring all things into subjection to God. They even believed that ―the Creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God‖ (Rom. 8:21). Even though they were an almost infinitesimally insignificant minority in a powerful pagan empire, they dared to proclaim that God would reconcile all things in heaven and on earth through the cross of this Jewish Carpenter (Col. 1:15-20). They dared to hope for that cosmic completion of the kingdom that Jesus announced precisely because the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus, plus Pentecost, were solid, tangible evidence that the messianic reign had already begun.

The Difference It Makes Defining the gospel as the Good News of the kingdom rather than merely the Good News of forgiveness or the Good News of personal salvation matters a great deal. For one thing, people who confess Jesus as the way, the truth, and the life ought to be careful not to abandon his central teaching! For another, understanding the central Christian message as the gospel of the kingdom helps provide a comprehensive, wholistic framework that helps us avoid both cheap grace and a narrow, one-sided understanding of mission.

Jesus‘ kingdom is clearly wholistic. Thank God that it does bring forgiveness with God and personal, inner sanctification in the power of the Spirit. But it also challenges and changes the social order. The kingdom impacts soul and body, individual and society. The church properly communicates the Good News of Jesus‘ kingdom by word and deed: by proclamation, miracles, acts of mercy and justice, and living out the gospel as a winsome example to others.

The Good News of the kingdom precludes an inward-looking preoccupation with the church.

Howard Snyder puts it pointedly: ―Church people think about how to get people into the church; kingdom people think about how to get the church into the world. Church people worry that the world might change the church; kingdom people work to see the church change the world.‖5 The church, to be sure, is important. Indeed so important that Jesus‘ new redeemed community is part of the Good News. God wants the church to be a little miniature now of the coming kingdom. For that reason, it should, like Jesus‘ first community, be a disturbing challenge to every kind of evil rather than a comfortable club of conformity to the world. The church has learned the awesome secret of God‘s cosmic design to restore the whole creation to wholeness.

Therefore Christians go forth into the world both to lead people to faith in Christ and also to erect signs of the coming kingdom within the broken kingdoms of the world, confident that the Messiah will one day return to complete the victory over the kingdom of darkness.

We can now see more clearly how much difference it makes when we define the Gospel the 5

Howard Snyder, Liberating the Church (Downers Grove, Ill.: Inter-Varsity, 1983), 11.

10

way Jesus did; i.e., not merely as forgiveness of sins, but that and more. Jesus‘ Gospel includes the fact that the Messianic reign has in fact begun and there is now a reconciled and reconciling community whose visible life is a sign of the kingdom that has already begun and will some day arrive in its fullness.

I want to underline seven differences–in addition to the important concern that surely Christians ought to define Jesus‘ central teaching the way Jesus himself did.

1.

If the Gospel is not just forgiveness of sins, but the Good News of the kingdom of God, we cannot separate a reconciled relationship with God and a reconciled relationship with brothers and sisters in Christ‘s body. I am not saying that the two relationships are identical– they are distinct. But they are also inseparable. We cannot continue in reconciled relationship with God if we refuse to be reconciled to other members of Christ‘s body. The Gospel of the kingdom protects us from an unbiblical, individualistic spiritualism (and cheap grace)6 that reduces salvation just to the forgiveness of the individual soul.

2.

If the Gospel is not just forgiveness, but the Good News of the kingdom of God, we are better able to understand that reconciled social and economic relationships in the body of Christ are one part of salvation. That is what the stories of Zaccheus and the early church show us so clearly. Economic sharing and racial reconciliation in the body of Christ are not some optional things that we can choose if we feel like it. They are essential parts of what it means to embrace the Gospel. When the church fails to live that way, the church is a visible denial of Jesus‘ proclamation that the Messianic kingdom has already begun.

3.

If the Gospel is not just forgiveness, but the Good News of the kingdom of God, we understand more clearly that ministering to both the physical and spiritual needs of people is not some optional possibility, but essential to the Gospel. In the Messianic time, the prophets promised, the Messiah would bring reconciled relationships with God and neighbor. Both spiritual and material needs would be met. Jesus the Messiah came, announcing and demonstrating his dawning kingdom by his words and deeds. Both his preaching and his healing were evidence that the Kingdom was arriving. Tenderly ministering to the material needs of people in the name of Jesus is essential if we are to be faithful to the Gospel of the kingdom.

4.

If the Gospel is not just forgiveness but the Good News of the kingdom, we see more vividly that the Christian community, if it is faithful, will always challenge what is wrong in the status quo. Jesus‘ Messianic community can never comfortably fit into any fallen society.

Guided by the vision of the dawning kingdom and empowered by the Holy Spirit, the faithful church will always be a loving critic, a counter-cultural community. They will treasure what is good in their society and challenge what is broken, precisely because they know the Creator of all is also the Redeemer who desires that Satan‘s inroads into this good creation be rolled back.

5.

If the Gospel is not just forgiveness of sins, but the Good News of the kingdom of God, then any sharing of the Gospel that does not include a significant concern for the poor is unbiblical. That is not to say, however, either that God cares more about the poor than the rich or that every evangelistic effort must include a word or action empowering the poor.

6

See my The Scandal of the Evangelical Conscience (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2005), Chap. 3.

11

God cares equally about everyone. Unfortunately, almost all comfortable people care more about themselves than about the needy and marginalized. God has an equal concern that every person accept Christ and enjoy the wholeness intended by the Creator. Since sinful persons regularly neglect or oppress the poor, God‘s people will regularly appear to be on the side of the poor precisely because they share God‘s equal concern for everyone.

Concern for the poor does not need to find explicit expression in every evangelistic act. But every extended sharing of the Gospel by a congregation or mission agency must make it as clear as Jesus did that the Gospel is for the poor and that part of the Good News they share is that there is now a new Christian community where human dignity, social empowerment and economic justice for the least and poorest are now being modeled and promoted in the power of the Spirit. Anything less is a denial of Jesus‘ Gospel.

6.

If the Gospel is not just forgiveness, but the Good News of the kingdom of God, we perceive more clearly that there must always be a sharp distinction between the church and the world.

One of the greatest temptations of Christians over the centuries has been to slowly conform to surrounding society rather than live in faithfulness to Jesus‘ kingdom norms. Because we are not just forgiven but are also being sanctified by the power of the Spirit, Christians can and should live reconciled lives that make Christians stand out in stark contrast to the broken world around them. In the early church, Jews and Gentiles, slaves and masters, men and women were reconciled–not completely, to be sure, but in such powerful ways that their pagan neighbors saw the radical change and were astonished. In amazement their neighbors asked why they were so different. In response, the early Christians told them about Jesus.

Today, the church looks so much like the world that neighbors seldom ask such questions.

So we lose the opportunity for evangelism.

A clear distinction between the church and the world is crucial in a second way too. The fact that the reign of God becomes visible in the church in a way that it does not in the larger world does not mean that social change in the larger society is irrelevant. It just means we do not expect as much reconciliation in the world as in the church. Two things follow: First, our first task is to make sure the church is really Jesus‘ new reconciled community. Just doing that has a great impact on society. Second, we also work to improve the larger society. Some day Jesus will come back and the kingdoms of this world will become the kingdom of our Lord. Therefore we work now to nudge society in the direction of that coming wholeness, justice, and reconciliation because we know it will come fully at Christ‘s return.

7.

Finally, if the Gospel is not just forgiveness, but the Good News of the kingdom of God, we cannot share the Gospel adequately just by preaching. We have to live it, too. Words and deeds must go together.

I am absolutely convinced that this full biblical Gospel is what our broken world needs. It certainly needs the fantastic news of forgiveness. But it also longs to hear and see the amazing truth that right now there is a reconciled and reconciling community that broken people can enter and be loved and nurtured toward wholeness. If even a quarter of the world‘s Christians would both preach and live Jesus‘ full Gospel of the kingdom, we would see revival and church growth on a scale never before seen. In addition, the world would become a better place. I pray that the church will embrace Jesus‘ whole Gospel of the kingdom of God.

12

4/30/10

13

WHY WOULD ANYBODY EVER WANT TO BE AN EVANGELICAL?*

Ronald J. Sider Colorado College January 22, 1994

*This chapter was originally given to a secular audience at Colorado College, Colorado, for a college-wide conference on spirituality. I was the â&#x20AC;&#x153;token evangelical.â&#x20AC;? Perhaps this essay designed for such a setting is an appropriate piece to honor a man who has regularly been an evangelist/apologist to secular contemporaries.

Aren't Evangelicals the folks who bring us TV evangelists with their sex scandals? Aren't Evangelicals right-wing fanatics and who fight all sensible gun control? Aren't Evangelicals anti-feminist reactionaries who want their women in the kitchen, submissive, barefoot and pregnant? Don't they want to take away the civil rights of gay Americans? And aren't they intellectual obscurantists who reject modern science? Don't they destroy the environment because they think the world is going to end very soon, so we might as well use all we can before God blows it to bits?

The public image of Evangelicals is not very good. At worst, Evangelicals are seen by many Americans as dangerous threats freedom, justice and the environment. At best, as naive, reactionary folk who want to return to the Middle Ages. Or silly, superstitious legalists.

The popular stereotype of Evangelicals, however, is far too simplistic. There are some Evangelicals who fit the stereotype. But I'm also an Evangelical. And I don't fit that image.

Iâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;m a feminist. I defend civil rights for gay Americans. I support vigorous gun control legislation. I'm the leader of a Christian environmental organization. I have worked hard for justice for the poor and nuclear disarmament. In fact I debated Religious Right leader Jerry Falwell on the nuclear freeze issue in the early 80's. I was in favor of a nuclear freeze, Jerry opposed it!

The widespread stereotype that all Evangelicals are right-wing fanatics is simply wrong.

Well then, who are the Evangelicals?

First of all, they are a big group. The 1992 Gallup Poll estimated that Evangelicals make up 38 percent of the American population. A very careful study by four political scientists in 1992 discovered that there are almost exactly as many evangelicals in the U.S. as Catholics: each are about 23 percent of the total population. That translates into 43 million voters.

What do these folks believe? Their core beliefs are the following: 1) The historic Christian affirmations about Jesus of Nazareth are true. Jesus is true God as well a true man, the only Savior who died for our sins and rose again from the dead.

2) The Old Testament and New Testament are a special, authoritative revelation from God and for Protestant Evangelicals, the final source for what we should believe and how we should act.

3) Telling others about Jesus Christ and inviting others to follow him are a central part of Christian faith.

Beyond some core beliefs that all evangelicals share, there is much diversity in church life and political viewpoint. Let me illustrate this in terms of political views using the 1992 study by the political scientists I mentioned earlier.

Most although not all evangelicals are pro-life and oppose abortion. Virtually all evangelicals believe homosexual practice is contrary to Godâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s will.

But the political scientists found that a majority of evangelicals also favor a number of political stands that are usually identified as progressive or liberal rather than conservative. A

majority of evangelicals favor national health insurance, good government programs to reduce poverty, and environmental initiatives.

Evangelicals have had a bad press. The stereotypes don’t fit many of us. I invite you to set aside those defective images, if only for the lecture, and explore with me in a little detail what Evangelicals believe and do and why they think and do that.

Of necessity, I must sketch a broad outline. I’m aware that every sentence needs a book (or ten) to substantiate the claims being made.

Evangelicals think that many modern thinkers have committed intellectual suicide. Modern folk claim that people, indeed all living things, are merely the product of a blind materialistic process governed by chance. Modern science, they claim, proves that. That is the viewpoint that still dominates the universities, the media and the intelligentsia generally. I have recently been involved in a major project on the environment with Carl Sagan and others. Carl Sagan, who died very recently of cancer, illustrates this huge mistake of modern thinkers. At the beginning of “Cosmos” (the book and the TV series), Sagan says nature is all that is, was and ever shall be.

Notice what follows if they are right. If everything results from matter and chance, then truth and ethics do not exist. People are simply sophisticated materialistic machines. Ethical values are totally subjective, merely an expression of our individual feelings. As the famous secular philosopher and mathematician Bertrand Russell said, ethical beliefs are totally relative.

In fact, Russell said that those who have the best poison gas will determine the ethics of the future. Ethics is what the powerful say is right. According to Marxist ethics, whatever served the interest of the party was true and good. Human life is not sacred and can be destroyed at society's convenience. If this supposedly "scientific" view is correct, then truth and ethics are illusions.

Persons are machines. Truth, justice, freedom, responsibility and liberty disappear. Society self-destructs.

Christians have a radically different view of the world.1 We believe that all life is the creation of a loving personal God, although of course God may have used a complex evolutionary process to do that. Human beings are free responsible persons whose deepest joy and ultimate obligation is to live in right relationship with their loving Creator. Created in God's image, every human being has ultimate value. Ethical truths are an expression of the very nature of God, not a relativistic product of a blind materialistic process.

Christians of course have believed these things for centuries. How did the modern secular view arise? It arose in the 18th century when more and more thinkers mistakenly concluded that one could not believe both in modern science and miracles at the same time. Consequently modern thinkers rejected the view held by Christians for 1,800 years that Jesus is true God and that he rose from the dead. They abandoned the belief that persons are created in the image of God and called to respond to God and live forever in God's presence. Instead they saw people as complex machines produced by a blind, materialistic process, and destined to decay and disappear like the grass, the trees, and the worms.

1

For an excellent presentation of the logic of Christian claims, see C. Stephen Evans, The Historical Christ and the Jesus of Faith (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1966).

2

It is very important to understand this basic mistake in modern thought. It is sheer confusion to suppose that more and more scientific information makes belief in God the Creator or belief in miracles more and more intellectually irresponsible. Science simply tells us with greater and greater precision what nature regularly does. In principle, no amount of scientific information could ever tell us whether there might or might not be a God who exists outside of nature. Now of course, if an all-powerful God happened to exist outside nature, that God could intervene in nature any time God chose. Does such a being exist?

One way to look for an answer to that question is to ask whether there is any evidence that points to the existence of such a God. I was trained at Yale as a historian. As an historian I think the historical evidence we have about Jesus of Nazareth points in that direction.

Over the centuries, Christians have claimed two very unusual things about Jesus: 1) in addition to being a great ethical teacher, he was also God in the flesh; 2) after getting crucified, he returned to life after three days.

If modern thinkers are right, if blind materialistic process is all there is, then resurrection from the dead is impossible. But if God exists then resurrection from the dead would be possible --anytime God chose to do that. If there were good historical evidence to show that Jesus was truly alive on the third day, that would also strongly suggest that God exists.

Interestingly, Anthony Flew said something similar a few years ago. Flew, as you know, is one of the great modern philosophers. He is also a prominent secular agnostic. But listen to what Flew says about Jesus' resurrection: We are agreed that the question of whether Jesus did rise from the dead is of supreme theoretical and practical importance. For the knowable fact that he did, if indeed it is a knowable fact, is the best if not the only reason for accepting that Jesus is the God of Abraham, Isaac and Israel.2 Well, what evidence is there?

Before we ask about the historical evidence for Jesus' resurrection, however, I want to sketch two other important historical facts about Jesus of Nazareth.

First, Jesus was a radical guy. He challenged the status quo of his time in all kinds of ways.

Rich and Poor. Jesus shocked the rich with his words about sharing. He told the rich young man who came inquiring about eternal life (and, probably, membership in Jesus' new circle as well) that he would have to sell his vast holdings and give all his wealth to the poor. Jesus urged the rich to make loans to the poor, even if there was no reasonable hope of repayment (Luke 6: 34-35). Those who do not feed the hungry and clothe the naked, he said, go to hell (Matt. 25: 31-46).

The marginalized. Jesus' special concern for the poor extended to all the marginalized, 2

Gary R. Habermas and Anthony G. N. Flew, Did Jesus Rise from the Dead? The Resurrection Debate (New York: Harper, 1987), p. 3.

3

weak, and socially ostracized. In sharp contrast to his contemporaries, Jesus demonstrated a special interest in the disabled, children, drunkards, prostitutes, and lepers (cf. Luke 76.32-50;19:l-10). In Jesus' day, lepers experienced terrible ostracism (Luke 17:12), living alone in awful poverty, shouting "unclean, unclean" lest anyone accidentally touch them. Jesus gently touched the lepers and miraculously healed them (Mark 1:41).

From the Dead Sea Scrolls, we learn that the Essenes, a Jewish religious group of Jesus' day, actually excluded the disabled from the religious community: No one who is afflicted with any human impurity may come into the assembly of God . . . . Anyone who is. . .maimed in hand or foot, lame or blind or deaf or dumb or with a visible mark in his flesh. . . . These may not enter or take their place in the midst of the community.3 Jesus, by contrast, commands the members of his new messianic community to invite precisely these people: "When you give a banquet, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, the blind" (Luke 14:13).

Women. Jesus’ attitude toward women reflects the same sweeping challenge to the status quo. In Jesus' day, it was a scandal for a man to appear in public with a woman. A woman’s word was considered useless in court. It was better to burn a copy of the Torah (the first five books of the Hebrew Bible than to allow a woman to touch it. Indeed, according to one firstcentury statement, "If any man teach his daughter Torah, it is as though he taught her lechery."

Women were excluded from most parts of the temple. Nor did they count in calculating the quorum needed for a meeting in the synagogue. First-century Jewish men regularly thanked God that they were not Gentiles, slaves, or women.

Jesus and his new community rejected centuries of male prejudice and treated women as equals. Jesus appeared with women in public (John 4:27), and taught them theology (Luke 10:38-42). He allowed a woman (Luke 7:36-50) that everybody knew was a sinner to wash his feet with her tears, wipe them with her long hair, kiss and perfume them–all in public.

Absolutely scandalous! When Mary abandoned her traditional role of cooking food to listen to Jesus' theology lesson, Martha objected. But Jesus defended Mary (Luke 10:38-42).

Jesus also challenged men in another way. Jesus rejected Moses' teaching on divorce, which allowed a man (but not a woman) to dismiss his spouse if she did not find favor in his eyes (Deut. 24:1-2). Jesus called both husband and wife to live together in lifelong covenant (Mark 10:1-12).

It was surely no accident that Jesus granted the first resurrection appearance to women!

Political leadership. Jesus must have infuriated Herod. When someone warned him that Herod wanted to kill him, Jesus shot back his response: "Go tell that fox. . .(Luke 13:32). In Jesus' day, that word meant about the same thing as the slang use of the word “skunk" does today.

3

Quoted in Joachim Jeremias, New Testament Theology (London: SCM, 1971), pp. 175-76.

4

Jesus taught and lived a radical ethic that deeply challenged the status quo. That alone would probably have been enough to get him put away.

But Jesus did another thing. He made outrageous claims about himself. He claimed divine authority to forgive sins. The religious leaders rightly said only God could do that. Jesus placed his own authority above that of Moses. And at his trial, he acknowledged that he was the Son of God. So Jesus got killed--for two reasons! First, because he was a dangerous social radical.

Second, because they said he was a blasphemer who claimed to be the only Son of God. So he was crucified. And that would seem to have put an end to Jesus. Except for one thing.

Soon after his death, there were reports that he was alive again.

Now, I have been trained as an historian. I did my doctoral work at Yale in history. I'm as sceptical as you are about silly claims with no evidence.

Is there any solid evidence that this carpenter from Nazareth was really alive on the third day?

I have examined the historical evidence carefully. There are thousands of articles and hundreds of books on the topic.

Here I can only summarize my research in four quick points: 1) the change in the discouraged disciples; 2) the empty tomb; 3) the fact that the first witnesses were women; and 4) the very early evidence in I Corinthians 15.

A short time after the crucifixion, the disciples announced to a Jerusalem crowd that Jesus had been raised from the dead. Within a few years, these same folk proceeded to crisscross the eastern part of the Roman Empire, braving intense persecution and eventually experiencing martyrdom. And it was these very people who had scattered at Jesus' arrest and fled home in despair.

What gave rise to the "resurrection faith" and the disciples' willingness to risk their lives to spread it? Professor Reginald H. Fuller, formerly of New York's Union Theological Seminary, has underlined the fact that this total transformation demands explanation: "Even the most skeptical historian has to postulate an â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;Xâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;, as M. Dibelius called it, to account for the complete change in the behavior of the disciples, who at Jesus' arrest had fled and scattered to their own homes, but who in a few weeks were boldly preaching their message to the very people who had sought to crush the movement launched by Jesus."4 Professor Pinchas Lapide, a prominent European Jewish scholar, makes the same point in a recent book, The Resurrection of Jesus. Lapide is not a Christian, but he does believe Jesus was alive on the third day.

I am completely convinced that the twelve from Galilee, who were all farmers, 4

Reginald H. Fuller, The Formation of the Resurrection Narratives (New York: Macmillan, 1971), p. 2.

5

shepherds and fishermen--there was not a single theology professor to be found among them--were totally unimpressed by scholarly theoloogoumena, as Karl Rahner and Rudolph Bultmann write them. If they, through such a concrete historical event as the crucifixion, were so totally in despair and crushed, as all four evangelists report to us, then no less concrete a historical event was needed in order to bring them out of the deep valley of their despair and within a short time transform them into a community of salvation rejoicing to the high heavens.5 Lapide also writes: When this scared, frightened band of the apostles which was just about to throw away everything in order to flee in despair to Galilee; when these peasants, shepherds and fishermen who betrayed and denied their master and then failed him miserably, suddenly could be changed overnight into a confident mission society convinced of salvation and able to work with much more success after Easter than before Easter, then no vision or hallucination is sufficient to explain such a revolutionary transformation.6 The explanation of the people closest to the events was that Jesus of Nazareth arose from the tomb and appeared to them over a period of a number of days.

If ones rejects the New Testament explanation of the resurrection faith and the transformation it caused in extremely discouraged people, then one is left with the very difficult task of proposing other grounds adequate to explain it. The late Professor Robert Grant of the University of Chicago has said: "The origin of Christianity is almost incomprehensible unless such an event took place."7 Second, and very important, is the question of the empty tomb. A short time after the crucifixion, Peter claimed that Jesus arose from the dead and--note--he made the claim in Jerusalem. It is exceedingly significant that the controversy over the resurrection, and the rise of the first Church, took place precisely in Jerusalem where anybody could have gone to visit the place of burial. It was in Jerusalem that hundreds became Christians within months of Jesus' death. Obviously it was in the interests of the religious leaders to produce the body of Jesus or give clear evidence of its proper disposal. But the earliest counter-argument against the claim that Jesus was alive was the suggestion that the disciples had stolen the body. This was an acknowledgement that they could not produce the body.

There have been a number of attempts to explain the empty tomb. The old one of the theft is no longer accepted. It has been suggested that Joseph of Arimathea, or the Romans, or the Jewish leaders removed the body before the women arrived; but, if so, the Jewish leaders would surely have conducted guided tours to the real burial place as soon as the silly disciples claimed Jesus had arisen.

5

Pinchas Lapide, The Resurrection of Jesus: A Jewish Perspective (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1983), p. 16.

6

Ibid., p. 125.

7

Robert Grant, Historical Introduction to the New Testament (New York: Harper, 1963), p. 376.

6

In his discussion of Jesus' resurrection,, Professor Wolfhart Pannenberg quotes Paul Althaus to underline this point: Paul Althaus has rightly seen this point: “In Jerusalem, the place of Jesus' execution and grave, it was proclaimed not long after his death that he had been raised. The situation demands that within the circle of the first community one had a reliable testimony for the fact that the grave had been found empty." The resurrection kerygma "could not have been maintained in Jerusalem for a single day, for a single hour, if the emptiness of the tomb had not been established as a fact for all concerned.”8 Since, then, the Christians and those who disagreed with them both agreed that the tomb was empty, it seems very likely that the empty tomb is an historical fact.

Third, the fact that women were the first people to visit the tomb and allegedly see the risen Jesus speaks in favor of the authenticity of the accounts. Professor C. F. D. Moule of Cambridge has pointed out that women were notoriously invalid witnesses according to Jewish principles of evidence.9 If, then, the early Christians had fabricated the accounts of the first visit to the tomb and the first meeting with the risen Jesus, they would certainly have claimed that men were the first witnesses. The best explanation for the priority of the women is that it actually happened that way.

Finally, we must look at the oldest evidence for the resurrection. In his first letter to the Corinthian church (the date is about 50-55 A.D.), Paul wrote: "I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. Then he appeared to more than 500 brethren at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. Last of all he appeared to me" (I Cor.15:3-7). Paul implies that, if his readers do not believe him, they can check, for many of the eyewitnesses are still around. In fact, the eyewitnesses on both sides saw the rapid spread of Christianity from Jerusalem to Rome.

The most important aspect of this passage, however, is its early date. Many scholars have pointed out that the words used here ("delivered" and "received") are technical terms used to refer to the careful handing down of oral tradition.10 Paul apparently taught this to all the churches. Furthermore, Paul says he received it presumably soon after he became a Christian about A.D. 35, just a few years after Jesus' death. That means that this witness to Jesus' resurrection received a fixed form very soon after the actual events (quite possibly before Paul’s first post-conversion visit to Jerusalem about A.D. 36 [Gal. 1:18f]).

As a historian, I find the evidence surprisingly strong. The most unbiased historical conclusion is that Jesus was probably alive on the third day.

8

Wolfhart Pannenberg, Jesus: God and Man (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1968), p. 100 (Althaus’s italics).

9

C. F. D. Moule, ed., “The Significance of the Message of the Resurrection for Faith in Jesus Christ,” in Studies in Biblical Theology, No. 8 (London: SCM, 1968), p. 9.

10

E.g., Fuller, Formation of the Resurrection Narratives, p. 10.

7

How did that happen? Obviously, you and I cannot do that sort of thing even with all our modern technology. The first Christians said God raised Jesus from the dead. That seems to me to be the most reasonable explanation. The resurrection suggests that the Christian view of the world, not the modern secular one, is true.

The resurrection is central both to what Christians think and to what they do at all kinds of points. Briefly, I mention three implications or results of Jesus’ resurrection.

First, the resurrection radically transformed what Jesus' followers thought about Jesus himself. Before the resurrection, Jesus' followers called him master, rabbi, teacher. After, they called him Messiah, son of God, Lord. This word Lord (Greek: Kurios) is very important. The word kurios was used in the Greek translation of the old Testament to translate the word Jahweh–the name for the one God at the center of Jewish monotheism. This is the word that became one of the most frequently used titles for the man from Nazareth. In Philippians 2, Paul applied to Jesus the words from Isaiah 45:23 which the monotheistic prophet had used f or Jahweh. After mocking the idols, Jahweh insisted in Isaiah 45:23 that he alone was God: "To me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear" (Is. 45:23). The rabbinically trained Paul–i.e., one of the most uncompromising monotheists in his day--took those words from the mouth of Jahweh and applied them to Jesus, declaring that "at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord" (Phil. 2:10-11). The carpenter is kurios–God. It is just here that modern folk take offense. Almost everyone is happy to acknowledge Jesus as the greatest prophet of all time, the most profound ethical teacher of human history. But Christians persist in pointing out that he was true God as well as true man. That offends.

Christians remember his words "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life; no one comes to the Father but by me" (Jn. 14:6). That offends.

If Jesus was God in the flesh, however, then I cannot pick and choose among Jesus' teachings, accepting the things I like and rejecting those that don't feel good. Instead I must joyfully accept him as Lord of all of my life--my politics, my economics, and my sexual life.

But Jesus taught some pretty costly things about sharing with the poor, loving my enemies, and keeping my marriage covenant for life. And I often find it hard to do what he said.

It's just at this point that a second implication of Jesus’ resurrection is so important. The New Testament says that when people believe in Jesus Christ, then the same divine power that raised Jesus from the dead now works in believers to empower them to live the way Jesus did.

Just as Christ died and was raised, so by faith we can die to the old life of selfishness and rise to a new life in Christ. “We were buried therefore with Christ by baptism unto death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life" (Romans 6:4). Or as Paul puts it in Galatians, the Risen Lord now lives in those who believe in Him: "It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me" (Galatians 2:20). "Christ in us" will mean living for Christ's sake a life for others. It may mean losing a job because we will not participate in the manufacture of nuclear weapons. It may mean rejecting or abandoning an attractive position in Toronto or Vancouver in order to work with the poor in the Third World.

8

It may mean deciding to live in the scarred inner city rather than in the pleasant suburbs. It will certainly mean risking the disapproval of our friends, colleagues and parishioners by clearly and persistently announcing the biblical word that God is on the side of the poor and that he calls us to be peacemakers. Because Christ lives in us, we have the spiritual energy to choose the difficult. We will be able to exhibit the same kind of love which Christ revealed in dying for us precisely because the God who raised our Lord Jesus now raises us to a new life for others.

Finally, the Christian view of death is my third illustration of how Jesus' resurrection radically shapes what Christians think.

Over the ages, death has seemed to pose a terrifying threat. Modern secular folk, of course, pretend otherwise. Bertrand Russell assures us that there is no need to tremble at the idea that death ends personal existence forever. We die, rot, and that's it. Most people, of course, merely buy life insurance and try not to think about it. But what ultimate meaning does personal existence possess if it exists for a mere three score years or, perhaps by reason of modern medicine, four score years, and then passes into sheer nothingness?

The Marxist philosopher Ernst Bloch thinks that the relative neglect of the problem of death in modern secular thought is due to the unconscious influence of inherited Christian views.

Death (we do not know for how long) can only be suppressed so well because new life was once hidden behind it; that is, it was dreamed about and believed to be there. . . .The paltry confession to nothing (Nichts) would hardly be sufficient to keep the head high and to work as if there were no end. Rather clear signs indicate that earlier and richer forms of wishful dreams [?] continue and give support in the subconscious. Through what remains from these ideals, the so-called modern man does not feel the chasm that unceasingly surrounds him and that certainly will engulf him at last. Through these remnants he saves, quite unawares, his sense of self-identity. Through them the impression arises that man is not perishing. . . .Thus in its ability to suppress the anxiety of all earlier times, apparently this quite shallow courage [of modern secular] people feasts on a borrowed credit card. It lives from earlier hopes and the support that they once had provided.11 Christians appreciate Bloch's expose of secular shallowness in the face of the ultimate reality of death. But we insist that the ancient hope for life after death is not wishful dreaming but assured reality. Christians believe that death is not a terrifying passage into nothingness but rather a transition into a glorious eternity in the presence of the Risen Lord Jesus. Why do Christians believe that? Because one person, Jesus of Nazareth, has already experienced death in all its fullness and returned from the dead to live forever. Christians believe that death is not a terrifying threat because the tomb was empty, because the one with whom the disciples had lived appeared to them and assured them that he is alive forevermore. We await the Risen Lord Jesus, and therefore can declare with Paul: "Death is swallowed up in victory. 0 death, where is thy victory?. . . .Thanks be to God who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ."

With this view of death, the Christian can act courageously today. Life at any cost is not our 11

Ernst Bloch, Das Prinzip Hoffnung (2nd ed.; Frankfurt am Main, Sukhrkamp Verlag, 1959), Vol. II., pp. 1360ff. quoted in Wolfhart Pannenberg, Jesusâ&#x20AC;&#x201C;God and Man (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1968), p. 84.

9

motto; death for the King's cause is not disastrous. Paul says: "If we live, we live to the Lord, and if we die, we die to the Lord...For to this end Christ died and lived again, that he might be Lord both of the dead and the living." (Romans 14:8,9). Because Christ is Lord of the living and the dead, we dare to face racists and militarists for the sake of our sisters and brothers; we dare to go as missionaries into dangerous situations; we dare to leave comfortable classrooms and secure homes to try to apply Jesus' call to peace and justice in the halls of government; we dare to join the poor in the swirling abyss of oppressive situations around the world.

Jesusâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; resurrection has transformed what Christians think and what Christians seek to do.

In a few minutes, we will have the opportunity for a vigorous time of question and answer. I look forward to that. But before I end the lecture, I want to show how the kind of evangelical Christianity I am describing works out concretely in the tough issues of our time--our ravaged environment, our violence-torn inner cities and our devastated families. And I'm going to make a strong claim that I'm sure some will want to challenge. I'm going to argue that biblical Christianity offers a better solution to these and other problems than the alternatives people are trying.

First a word on methodology. Whenever I seek to articulate my position on a contemporary issue I try to bring together two things: 1) a carefully researched understanding of the full conceptual framework and ethical principles that the Bible teaches; 2) a thorough understanding of the full resources of modern thought (the social sciences, natural sciences, etc.). The Bible is my authority for faith and practice (for theology and ethics). But the Bible does not talk about whether we should build nuclear reactors or keep the comatose on life-support systems for years. To answer those questions, we have to combine biblical principles with sophisticated contemporary social and scientific analysis.

1) Our environmental crisis. The crisis is real and urgent. We must change not only our actions but our beliefs. Even secular people like Carl Sagan have begun pleading with the religious community to get involved. But what religious ideas will truly help us?

Some people are turning to varieties of Easter monism. New Age folk like the actress Shirley MacLaine say the solution is monism which teaches that all is divine.

But notice a couple things. First of all, if monism is right and all is divine, then all is good and you cannot even distinguish between good and evil. Furthermore, the ideal in Eastern monism is to escape this material world, turn within and merge with the all. The material world is an illusion. The ideal is to merge with the Divine All in the way a drop of water falls into the ocean and disappears. The individual person loses all individual identity.

How does that worldview offer a solution to our environmental crisis? If the material world is an illusion, why worry about it?

Biblical faith is radically different. You and I and all the world around us are not divine.

But we are very important. We are the creation of an all-powerful, all-loving Creator. We are finite but good. The material world is so good that the God of the universe, the Creator of 120 billion galaxies, became flesh on this little blue planet. The material world is so good that Jesus Christ rose bodily from death. The material world is so good that Jesus Christ promises to return 10

to this earth and complete the victory over injustice, evil and death itself.

Some environmentalists say persons are no more important than monkeys or moles or mushrooms. To claim a special status for the people is specieism. But if that is true, then civilization collapses. We have no right to eat anything or use anything in the world around us.

Nor is redivinizing the material world the answer. In the film "Out of Africa," the animists say they cannot build a dam because the water spirits live at the sea. That prevents wise use of the material world to improve human civilization.

The biblical view is a carefully balanced view. Persons alone are created in the image of God and persons have the special task of being God's stewards over the rest of creation on this planet. But the Genesis story that talks about this says persons are to "care for" God's garden.

The word actually means â&#x20AC;&#x153;to serve itâ&#x20AC;?.

The Bible also says the non-human creation has independent worth and significance entirely apart from you and me. The heavens declare the glory of God. The sun, moon and stars sing praises to their Creator. The Creator cares about every endangered species. So we should too.

Christians have often neglected this full biblical teaching on the creation. And we have, along with Enlightenment naturalists, helped destroy the environment. For that, I repent. But I believe biblical faith offers a far better foundation for lovingly caring for this gorgeous creation than does eastern monism, Goddess worship, animism or naturalism.

2) Our inner cities. I lived in one of the most desperate parts of Philadelphia for seven years.

The violence, drug abuse, unemployment and family chaos is almost unbelievable. And the causes are complex: racism, global economic forces that moved jobs to Third World countries; wrong personal choices about drugs, sex and alcohol.

How do we solve it? The government has been trying to do that for decades. It has spent hundreds of billions of dollars on well-intentioned programs to renovate housing, provide Head Start, improve the schools, etc. A few things have helped. But the problems get worse and worse.

Biblical faith says we have missed half of the problem. For wholeness, people need both a good external environment and internal integrity grounded in a right relationship to God.12 Let me tell you two stories. James Dennis is one of my special friends. For several years, we served together as elders in an inner-city church. Thirty years ago, James Dennis was an angry black militant. He hated whites. A few years ago, he said that if he had met me back then, he might have killed me. Thank God, he met Jesus first! Like so many inner-city young men with few decent job opportunities, James became an alcoholic. His marriage was in trouble, and he landed in prison for a serious crime. While there, someone shared the Gospel with him, and he began to experience the transforming grace of Jesus Christ. When he left prison, our pastor walked beside him, supporting and discipling, and James became an active member and then an elder in our church. James Dennis is a radically different person today. He is still a proud African-American who will not tolerate even the hint of white racism, but God erased his racial hatred and restored his family. He has a good job and owns his own home. Transforming grace 12

See my Just Generosity: A New Vision for Overcoming Poverty in America (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1999).

11

has invaded his life.

Anybody who thinks that the best government programs on jobs, housing, and prison reform would have been enough to solve James Dennis' problems simply doesn't get it. He needed a personal relationship with Jesus Christ, which has transformed the core of his being, his values, inner convictions, and family life. At the same time, anybody who thinks that being born again, by itself, would have been enough to solve his problems doesn't get it either. James Dennis can be as born again as you like, but if the inner-city school system offers his children a lousy education, if decent housing is unavailable, and there are no jobs to be found, he still has big problems.

For ten years, Raleigh Washington was the African-American pastor of Rock of Our Salvation Church (Evangelical Free)â&#x20AC;&#x201C;an inner-city, interracial congregation on the West side of Chicago. Intimately connected with the church is Circle Urban Ministries, a holistic community center led by Glen Kehrein, a white farm boy from Wisconsin. Circle has a medical clinic with seven full-time doctors, a legal clinic with two full-time lawyers, a low-income housing program that has renovated millions of dollars pf housing for the poor, and job-creation programs and small-business development to build an economic base in the inner city. But the community center staff know that unless they offer more than excellent medical or legal help, they will never get to the heart of the problems and produce lasting change. So when they sense a spiritual need, doctors and lawyers feel free to speak of Christ--or encourage the person to arrange a visit to one of the three chaplains who now work both in the community center and the church. The result has been a rapidly growing inner-city congregation with about 500 members.

Some years ago, Cassandra Holmes Franklin came to Rock/Circle's medical clinic, seeking a doctor's help. She got that, but they also told her about Jesus. Soon she came to Christ, joined Rock Church, and started singing in the choir. A little later she married Showen, the father of her two children, who also soon came to personal faith. Now her husband has a job as partner in an economic development venture of Circle Ministries starting a small business. In a recent year his business had twelve employees and cleared a profit of $50,000. Jesus' kind of Christianity works! Rock/Circle is just one of hundreds of examples of committed Christian congregations daring to live and work in the midst of the agony of our inner cities in order to provide a holistic solution. Of course the government has a crucial role to play. There must be quality schools, decent housing and above all jobs that pay a living wage. But, unless people are changed, unless racism is overcome in our hearts, unless our families are restored, the best government programs will fail.

3) Finally, Family and Feminism. Everybody knows the American family is a disaster area Social scientists regularly report the sad fact that children from homes where parents are divorced do more poorly in school, are more likely to get into crime, etc. Furthermore, our society experiences incredible levels of rape, incest, and all kinds of sexual and physical violence against women.

The answer is not some kind of conservative religious patriarchy where the husband dominates the home, ruling wife and children as lord and master. In fact, that kind of patriarchy probably contributes to sexual abuse in the home. But neither is the solution the kind of radical feminism that prefers lesbianism to marriage and places personal self-fulfillment above responsibility to children. I think biblical faith is just what we need. Jesus Christ, as we saw, was 12

a feminist. He lived a radical challenge to the male chauvinists of his day, treating women as equals. The overarching principle that St. Paul spells out for husbands and wives in Ephesians 5 is mutual submission. Jesus calls men and women to sexual purity and joyful life-long marriage covenant.

Let me put it personally. My wife Arbutus and I have been married for 38 years. We believe in full mutuality in our marriage. we make our decisions together. We love sex, even at 60, but we have never had sex with anyone else. There have been times in our marriage when we have hurt each other and struggled. We needed 6 months of marriage counselling once. But we were and are committed to each other for life so we worked through those difficulties to a time of even greater joy and love. Our three children have never worried that we would get a divorce. We are both feminists--biblical feminists like Jesus whom we love and worship.

I think the full biblical view of family, marriage and the equality of women is what our aching homes need. You cannot have happy marriages if you screw around all through college and are never sure, even after marriage, if your partner will be faithful to you. Your marriage will not last if you see it as a limited contract that you will dissolve as soon as it does not feel good and fulfill your immediate personal needs. The demand for instant gratification and self-centered individualism are central causes of the hell that rampages through our marriages. There is a better way. The way that Jesus taught. It is possible--and in the long run full of greater joy and fulfillment--to reserve sex for marriage, to be faithful to your spouse. The full biblical view of family and feminism is just what this hurting society needs.

One final concluding point. Jesus teaches high standards. What happens when we fail?

God--and the media--know Christians often do. Well, the cross of Jesus Christ is, I think, an astonishing answer. Christians believe that Jesus Christ took upon himself the punishment that our evil deeds deserve, so that a holy God could forgive our terrible acts against others and God. The awful evil that you and I do to neighbors poses a terrible problem. Let me be personal.

There was a period in our marriage when Arbutus and I hurt each other rather deeply. We could have said., "Aw, shucks, it doesn't matter. It was nothing. Forget it." That would have been pure nonsense. It hurt like hell. Or we could have said: "That's it. I cannot forgive you." But then our relationship and the deep love we had shared for two decades would have ended. Instead, we did on a microcosmic scale what God did at the cross. Arbutus looked at me and said: "What you did was very evil. But I love you. I accept the pain of the evil you did to me and I forgive you. Let's walk on together." I did the same for her. It wasn't easy and it didn't happen in a day, month or even year. But the result has been renewed joy and wonderful happiness. According to the Bible sin is a terrible thing. It cannot be ignored. Hitlers and Stalins and wife beaters and liars and oppressors and rapists and racists all deserve punishment. So do guys who take advantage of women sexually at Colorado College.

But at the cross, God, Jesus Christ who is very God, suffered the hell of Roman crucifixion because the Holy Creator combines justice and love in an awesome integration. So God suffers the punishment you and I deserve so that evil deeds can be forgiven; so that broken people can be reconciled. You see the only alternative to divine and human forgiveness is an ever widening circle of broken relationships, hostility and violence. Let me conclude. I don't pretend that evangelicals have always lived up to the high standards I have sketched. We have often failed to follow Jesus. But that is what we believe. And with the power of the Risen Jesus in our lives, that is what we seek to live.

13

Why would anybody want to be an evangelical? First of all, because biblical faith is true.

And second, because it works. If you don't believe me, I challenge you to examine the evidence-- openly without bias. And then I dare you to try it.

14

WILL YOU BE ANY DIFFERENT?

Ronald J. Sider

Commencement Address Messiah College May 16, 2009

President Phipps, faculty colleagues, graduates, family and friends.

I want to say thank you very much, Messiah College, for the honorary degree you have just given to me. I am deeply grateful. I think the core of who I am and what I have tried to do in my life flows out of the Brethren in Christ denomination that founded Messiah College.

I could not help thinking as I received the degree about a conversation I had with Messiah College’s fourth president, C. N. Hostetter, Jr., a long time ago in 1958. Back then, Messiah’s president also did a lot of admissions work, looking for prospective students; and President Hostetter was in Ontario recruiting students. We talked, and I explained that I had decided to go to a college in Ontario. Pres. Hostetter urged me to change my mind. He said: “Ron, you can make a mistake once, but after that you are stupid.” Well, stupid or not, I did not decide to attend Messiah College back then. But I am delighted that today I finally have a Messiah College degree. And I’d like to think that C. N. Hostetter, Jr., who is one of my heroes, is looking down and is also pleased.

Graduates, my talk this morning is called: “Will You Be Any Different?”

Whenever I think carefully about Christian faith, I am utterly amazed. Modern science continues to disclose the breathtaking vastness and astonishing complexity of our 14-billion-year-old universe with its one hundred billion galaxies each with its own billions of stars. Christian faith tells us that at the center of this incredible universe is an infinite loving Person who is both Creator and Redeemer. Even more astounding, this loving Creator of the galaxies became flesh as an embryo, a growing baby in the womb of an illiterate virgin living in an oppressed colony at the edge of the powerful, pagan Roman empire on a tiny planet in a small solar system in just one galaxy among the universe’s one hundred billion galaxies.

This baby became a carpenter, then a wandering Jewish teacher, explaining that the God of the universe cared so much about the evil ways we mistreat and destroy our neighbors that he came to live among us both to show us how to love our neighbors and also to give us the power to do it. He taught us that the God of the universe is awesome holiness as well as overflowing love and therefore we selfish, sinful persons would have no hope of standing in the presence of the Living God except for one thing—God loves us so much that Jesus takes our sin upon himself and dies in our place so that we can stand unafraid in the presence of Infinite Holiness.

What makes all this even more astounding is that this wandering Jewish teacher not only taught an amazing message, he also made blasphemous claims. The very center of Jewish belief in Jesus’ time was that there is only one God. Greek and Roman polytheists believed that gods and goddesses ran around doing strange things but the Jews knew better. God is one. There is only one God. But the Nazarene Carpenter claimed to have divine authority to forgive sins. At his trial he acknowledged he was the Son of God. When Thomas met the risen Jesus, Thomas uttered the amazing words: “My Lord and my God.” This man from Nazareth, the early Christians taught, was also true God, Creator of the galaxies, King of kings and Lord of lords. His bursting from the tomb on the third day, they believed, provided convincing evidence that all his teaching and claims were true.

But Jesus did even more than offer unmerited forgiveness of sins and reveal that he was God in the flesh. He said the long expected Messianic kingdom promised by the prophets of old was actually breaking into history in his person and work. He said the eagerly awaited time of peace and justice was arriving. He taught his disciples to care for the poor, minister to the sick, and love their enemies.

1

Jesus also challenged the status quo in many ways—the greed of the rich, the neglect and mistreatment of lepers, women, the poor and disabled. And Jesus promised that the same Almighty God who raised him from the dead would live in his disciples through the Holy Spirit to give them the inner power to live and love the way he did.

Equally astounding, Jesus’ earliest disciples taught that God’s ultimate plan, at the Second Coming, was to overcome all evil, wickedness and injustice and restore to wholeness everything in creation that sin had messed up. They believed that Jesus’ ever growing circle of disciples should and can live now in the knowledge that the decisive victory over evil has already been won and that at Christ’s Second Coming, the victory will be completed. In the meantime, you and I are to find meaning and joy as we take our tiny place in this grand cosmic drama. As we share the story of this glorious salvation inviting others to confess and follow Christ and as we live like Jesus even now in the midst of a broken world, each one of us plays a tiny but important role in God’s grand cosmic drama. As the community of Jesus’ disciples truly lives like Jesus, we offer a skeptical, hurting world a little picture of what heaven will be like, a little picture of what the redeemed earth will look like when Christ returns.

I find this story—this true account of God’s action in history—utterly dumbfounding. That the Creator of one hundred billion galaxies became flesh on our tiny planet; that our awesomely holy God loves you and me and every other human being so much that God himself gladly suffers the hell of Roman crucifixion for me, for you so that whosoever will may be saved; that each one of us is personally invited by the Infinite Lover at the center of the universe not only to live forever in his presence but even to play a small part now in moving society toward that peace, justice and wholeness that Christ will perfect at his Second Coming; all that is simply mind-boggling.

I can only bow down in worship and praise.

That, my young friends, is the utterly fantastic Good News that I wanted to review this morning. I say review because that in brief is a central part of what you have learned in your four years at Messiah College.

But there is also bad news. What tears my heart out is that so many of the people who claim to embrace this glorious story act as if they do not believe a word of it.

The Christian church is supposed to be a little visible picture of what heaven will be like. Instead, so many Christians live just like the world.

So many Christians mimic the world rather than follow Jesus. So many Christians commit adultery, worship money, file for divorce, hate their enemies, embrace idolatrous nationalism, and destroy God’s creation just like their unbelieving neighbors.

If there was time—and there is not—I could cite reams of polling data and other statistics to underline what I mean.

For now, just a couple sad statistics. Polls show that evangelical Christians who claim to have the Risen Lord living in their hearts get divorced at the same rate as the rest of society. In some polls, evangelicals are even more racist than other Americans. One study of a prominent, wonderful evangelical denomination discovered that physical and sexual abuse was just as common in that church as in the rest of society. The Christians living in this country, the richest nation in history, give only about one-fourth of a tithe (2.6% of their income) to their churches. If we would just tithe, U.S. Christians could give another $160 billion a year 2

to the work of the kingdom. That $160 billion is more money than all the rich nations of the world give every year to fight poverty and disease in developing countries.

Graduates, in all honesty, I have to say: So many of my generation and your parents’ generation of Christians are lukewarm, half-hearted Christians who often have lived more like their sinful neighbors than like Jesus. So I ask you a basic question: Will you be any different? Will you follow Jesus rather than the world?

The awesome God I described stands with arms outstretched pleading with you to live like Jesus. But he will not coerce you. If you want to go to church on Sunday and then worship sex, money, power, and short-term personal self-fulfillment the rest of the week like so many Christians today, God will let you do that although it breaks his heart.

But there is a better way. You can decide to live differently from today’s lukewarm Christians who mouth Christian words and then mimic the world. You can decide that no matter what the cost, you will live like Jesus. If you do, you will be surprised by joy as God uses you to transform this hurting world.

My friends, small groups of daring pioneers have regularly changed history. Let me remind you of three examples.

About 250 years ago, William Wilberforce was living a self-centered sinful life as a member of the wealthy British gentry. Then he met Christ in the Wesleyan revival and God transformed his life. For about thirty years he worked tirelessly as a member of the British parliament to persuade his nation that slavery was a sin against God and neighbor. It was a hard sell because slavery and the slave trade were major pillars of the British economy. But Wilberforce combined prayer and a passion for evangelism with brilliant political strategy and eventually persuaded the British parliament to abolish first the slave trade and then slavery itself. This daring evangelical politician changed the course of British history.

Or consider the Student Volunteer Movement. At a conference for university students led by Dwight L. Moody in 1886, a call to evangelize the world in their generation captured the imagination of hundreds of students. Over the next few decades 25,000 university students became foreign missionaries, tripling the number of Protestant missionaries around the world. The Student Volunteer Movement is one important reason why the number of Christians has grown by leaps and bounds in Africa, Asia and Latin America in the last one hundred years—transforming the economics, politics and culture of the planet. A few tens of thousands of committed evangelical university graduates truly changed the world.

Finally, let me tell you about my good friend Wayne Gordon. Wayne grew up in a Christian home in the mid-west. He had perfect Sunday school attendance for several years but had never personally committed his life to Christ. Then during an Athletes for Christ weekend, when he was in Grade Ten, Wayne did that.

That Sunday night after returning home, he lay on his bed filled with a new sense of joy. Wayne looked through the ceiling and declared: “Lord, I’ll do anything you want me to do with my life.”

Almost immediately, he felt a call to the inner city. So Wayne woke up his parents, told them of God’s call, and said he must go. Good Christian parents that they were, they said: That’s fine, but you should probably finish high school. Wayne did that—in fact, he graduated from Wheaton College—and then moved into the Lawndale section of Western Chicago, one of the twenty poorest neighborhoods in the country at that time.

3

When Wayne moved into Lawndale, the infant mortality rate there approached the levels of very poor countries. Very few students graduated from the failing high schools. It was tough sledding at first. The night Wayne returned from his honeymoon, somebody broke into their apartment—and it happened ten more times in the next two years.

Wayne started a Bible club and a recreation club for the youth and they started to accept Christ.

Wayne saw they needed tutoring so he started a tutoring program. He saw they needed health care so he started a medical center. Today the medical center has about thirty full-time doctors and ministers to tens of thousands of people every year. The state-of-the-art tutoring program has helped over two hundred youth graduate from college. Wayne’s community center has built millions of dollars of low-income housing. The community center is now a $15 million a year program transforming a whole neighborhood in Chicago.

At the center of all this work is a church of a thousand people—most of whom have come to faith in Christ through the work of the community center. Wayne—and all the staff he hires—know that people need more than just good health care or job training although they certainly do need those things. People need Jesus and a job. Thousands of people have come to faith in Christ through the work of Wayne’s holistic community center.

All of that started because one young man looked into the face of God and said: “Lord, I’ll do anything you want me to do with my life.” The result was a life lived in a dramatically different way from that of today’s half-hearted Christians.

My young friends, I ask you: Will you be any different from today’s lukewarm Christians? Will you make empowering poor people more important than making money? Will you keep your marriage vows even in the hard times? Will you plead at least with the Christians in this hyper-nationalistic country to obey Jesus’ command to love our enemies? Will you be business leaders who reject greed? Political leaders who oppose corruption?

The world is waiting for a generation of faithful Christians who would truly live like Jesus.

Our God promises, if you surrender your whole being to him, to give you the power of the Risen Lord to keep your marriage vows and live joyful life-long marriages so full of contagious goodness that your neighbors will long to know your Lord. Our God promises to help you give generously, even sacrificially, of your time and money to empower the poor. Our God promises to give you the vision and commitment to restore respect for human life, battle disease, work for peace and care for creation. The Lord longs to see a new generation of young leaders who will dedicate their lives to sharing the glorious Gospel of Jesus with those who have never heard.

There are enough people graduating from Messiah College this morning to transform significant parts of our world in powerful ways. But it all depends on each of your answer to the question: Will you be any different from today’s half-hearted Christians?

The Lord stands with arms wide open inviting you to a life of joyful costly discipleship. He asks you to surrender every corner of your lives, every hope, every ambition to Him. I beg you, look into his face and promise: I will be different. I will live like you. My Lord, if you give me the strength, I’ll do anything you want me to do with my life.

4