Lazy Liberals, WAKE UP!!!

As the fight for just and humane immigration reform begins with a mark-up in the Senate Judiciary Committee this week, I know there will be much political analysis about what will help legislation pass and what could defeat it. I feel strangely and cautiously optimistic for the first time in years - really ever. But I also see real potential for defeat. Even more, I see real potential for something even worse than no legislation passing: legislation that passes but does not bring about genuine and much-needed reform and leaves us stuck with an unworkable system that excludes many and further militarizes the border and increases enforcement which will make defense contractors and private prisons even richer. We are in danger of the illusion of reform without the substance of reform and that is the worst possible scenario.

I hate to sound the voice of gloom, but I can tell you that the sounds associated with such illusion of reform with no substance will not come with a cacophony of anger from one side of the political aisle, but rather, failure will be associated with the sound of silence. It will be the silence of liberals. Sadly, liberals have grown far too dependent on the sounds of others and far too accommodating for the larger cause of supposedly "getting something done" and we have, all too often when it comes to issues such as immigration, gone silent and lost our greatest strength: passionate devotion to our values.

I have seen an alarming vision of this with the recent entrance of religious conservatives into the struggle for immigration reform. Religious conservatives becoming engaged in humanitarian issues such as immigration has been, in my mind, something of a mixed blessing. Religious conservatives have brought greater media attention because of the media's infatuation with them. In addition, supposedly liberal funders have given incredibly large sums of money to groups that, out of nowhere, have made organizing religious conservatives one of their priorities. Watching DC advocacy groups chase after funding dollars should be a reality show.

But one of the many downsides to the entrance of religious conservatives is that all too often I have heard some liberals speak of their entrance into the struggle as if it means that the rest of the faith community can take a vacation. Now, let me be specific. There are many, many progressive people of faith who are not waiting for others to make genuine reform happen. I know many of them personally and they are amazing. I know United Methodists - many of them moderate to liberal - who have engaged in over 1050 public witness in support of just and humane immigration reform during just the past four years. Yet, I also know far too many - many of them occupying titles and positions of influence. But they are passive. To be blunt, they are lazy.

I might make some angry for saying this, and I again want to stress that this characterization does not apply to all liberals by any stretch of the imagination. But too many liberals have become lazy. Lazy liberals rely far too easily on tired, worn out ,ineffective church structures that no longer work, if they ever did. Lazy liberals have ignored the work of individual conversations and recruiting new folks to build teams with and have instead depended on email lists and church statements and worn out Bible studies. Lazy liberals have accepted the media's almost complete marginalization of liberal voices and have excitedly pointed to the emergence of religious conservative voices, ignoring the deep divides in terms of values between the two sides. Yep, too many of us are lazy.

And our laziness comes not only at the peril at our voices being marginalized. More importantly, our laziness and our dependence on religious conservatives imperils the genuine reform needed to truly defend and support the basic civil and human rights of our immigrant sisters and brothers. I believe that an energized liberal faith community is the only thing that can take the current Senate bill offered by the Gang of 8, which offers the illusion of reform, and, through much-needed amendments, see that it is perfected to include the substance of reform.

The Senate bill as it is currently introduced fully embraces the principles put forward by religious conservatives and ignores, not surprisingly, the values that liberal faith groups have been putting forward for years. Religious conservative principles include:

• Guaranteed secure borders. Now, I have written elsewhere on the theological and missiological nonsense of Christians advocating for a guarantee of secure borders, but for purposes here, the crafters of the Senate bill clearly saw this principle as political cover for an immigration bill that is far, far more about border security than it is about immigrants. On top of the 18 billion having been spent in fiscal year 2012 alone, the Senate bill adds another 4.5 billion for good measure. At a time when the sequester cuts have taken over 600,000 recipients off of WIC, the Senate's crass expenditures will go straight into the coffers of defense contractors and private prisons as they expand hideous programs like Operation Streamline. (Hey lazy liberals, still asleep?)
• Priority on unifying the immediate family only. The Senate bill takes the cue that stripping important family categories that have been in place for close to 50 years such as siblings and bringing over adult children will not be met with any stiff resistance. (Maybe starting to stir a little bit lazy liberals?)
• Fairness to tax payers. Now, I have no earthly idea how this principle has anything to do with the immigration debate, but it is there for religious conservatives nonetheless. This causes even more disbelief when faced with the reality that immigrants do pay taxes! Still, it is there and it seems to have been given credence by framers of the Senate bill when they created a point system that favors high tech employees and corporations over and against family reunification and low-skilled workers. While big corporations will be quite happy with this, many of the immigrants who make up our congregations will not and we have to ask ourselves who it is that needs the voice of the faith community more in this fight for genuine reform. (OK lazy liberals, now I am starting to see a little movement)
• Lastly, while not a principle that is listed by religious conservatives, discriminating against the GLBT community and not allowing family members of same-sex families to reunify has been, in meetings I have attended, THE primary focus of concern for religious conservatives when it comes to reform. Though President Obama favors this provision and though liberals see this provision as an obvious human rights issue, the Senate bill favors the sentiments of religious conservatives and has decided they want certain immigrants to come to our country: straight ones. This, more than any other principle embraced by religious conservatives, illustrates the heretical belief that we are supposed to distinguish between deserving and undeserving people who are vulnerable. (Yeah, now I see you sitting up! I hope you had a nice nap my lazy liberal friends, but a lot has happened during your slumber and none of it good)

 With the Senate bill embracing the principles of religious conservatives, I believe we will have immigration reform, if passed, that is not workable and is not centered on immigrants.

Just as we reject the illusion of reform without the substance of reform, we too must reject the notion of religious unity without actual unity. For years now, everyone has been telling liberals like me to not expose the differences among faith groups - to instead emphasize unity, even when so many of us recognize that there is no unity when it comes to what we want to see in immigration reform. Yes, we all acknowledge the system is broken - only the most inane voices do not acknowledge that. But the unity that so many foolishly trumpet quickly falls apart from there. The truth is that there can never be unity when one group entirely ignores the other. Though I have been to hundreds of coalition meetings on immigration reform, I can honestly say I have never been to one with religious conservatives on this issue. That is stunning in and of itself.

Lazy liberals must wake up or we will end up watching a reform that, once there is even further negotiating and cattle-trading, will be so watered down that it is a sham. We either wake up, and wake up this week by making our voices heard in a big way to Senate Judiciary Committee members through our calls, or immigrants will be the worse for our lack of effort.

Here are some aspects to the Senate bill that desperately need amending:

• Reduce the total wait time for immigrants to wait with a Registered Provisional Immigrant (RPI) status from 10 years to 6 years
• Give immigrants with RPI full access to health care and other important social services
• Extend the cut-off date for Registered Provisional Immigrant status to from December 31, 2011 to the date of enactment
• Don't exclude those with aggravated felony offenses or with three misdemeanors from attaining the RPI status. We especially want to eliminate the term "aggravated felony" which could include some misdemeanor offenses or minor drug offenses. Moreover, we should exempt individuals who are in states with 1070-type laws or where there has been consistent practices of racial profiling.
• Include same-sex family members who are separated in the effort to reunify families
• Lower the effectiveness rate for securing the border from its current level of 90% and remove the pathway to citizenship from all border security triggers
• Reinstate the categories of siblings and adult children and eliminate the point system
• Base any further expenditures on border security on reinstating the sequester cuts to the most vulnerable. As soon as every person cut from access to such programs as WIC and Head Start is fully reinstated, then money can be appropriated for more border security madness.

 These simple changes would make the Senate bill actually workable and humane.

But let me be clear, you calling all these Senators by yourself is not going to do it. We have got to build a movement. For folks (like myself) who look back at the 60s longingly at the movement-building and organizing that took place, we have not, by and large, not done a powerful job of mimicking them. Knowing that there is no single bill that will fully defend and support the rights of immigrants, here are a couple of things we must do to have long-term impact for years to come:

• We must first enter into incarnational relationships with immigrants - advocating without immersed relationships among immigrant communities is the way to follow the current path blazed by DC advocacy groups who advocate for principles and not people
• We need to have one on one conversations with people in our congregations and invite them to join us in forming teams of folks, incarnated among immigrant communities

And to have an impact this week and in the weeks to come, here are a couple of things we can do right now:

• Make calls each day to the list of Senate Judiciary Members (list is below) relating the list of needed changes listed above
• Wake up our dead or dying institutional structures by doing more than sending emails - we need to call everyone on our justice lists and urge them to make calls as well!
• Find out who made calls and invite them to join with you in meeting with your Senator the last week in May for a Neighbor to Neighbor meeting, urging them to support immigration reform that supports these simple changes.

As I stated before, I know lots of progressive people of faith who are fully engaged and waiting for no one to step up for them. But I also far too many lazy liberals and it is time to jump on the bus so that we can go. We have been waiting around long enough. It is time for liberals to be bold and demand the changes that we know will make reform genuine and truly inclusive. And if they refuse to give in and assume that we will meekly step aside and allow the word reform to be hijacked by the political and economic status quo. Then it will be time for us to say no to any reform at all.

Lazy liberals, WAKE UP!!! The only ones who can bring about the reform that we need - that our immigrant sisters and brothers absolutely need and deserve - are us. 

A Post-Easter Thought on the Gun Violence Debate

The passage we read for church this Sunday was taken from John 20 and as my pastor read this familiar Scripture describing Thomas' doubting of Jesus' resurrection, something I hadn't seen before struck me. In the passage Jesus appears to all of the disciples except Thomas, who, true to his nature, doubts that he arose at all. Thomas wants to touch the nail holes in Jesus' hands and put his hand in Jesus' side. Luckily for Thomas, Jesus reappears and graciously and patiently allows Thomas to touch him and see for himself the truth of his physical resurrection. In itself, this is a powerful reminder that Jesus is far more patient than his Church often is when it comes to dealing with the natural doubts of disciples.

But what struck me when I heard the passage read aloud is the time between Jesus' appearances. It was "a week later" after Jesus first appeared that Jesus reappeared and made the truth known to Thomas. I was struck because imagine this scene: the disciples see Jesus alive and well and then tell Thomas of this amazing new reality and Thomas' reaction is not to believe his brothers, but to doubt them and demand that he see for himself before he places his trust in the resurrection. What do you think the disciples are thinking and feeling when they hear Thomas' demand? These are people that Thomas has lived among, come to know intimately, experienced the highest of highs and lowest of lows with; they all have seen Jesus and know he has overcome death. He was crucified and now he is alive, he is the Christ. But Thomas not only doubts Jesus' resurrection, he doubts the witness and testimony of these, probably his closest friends in the world.

Now, the text says absolutely nothing about what happened within the span of that week. The text is focused on Jesus' actions during his post-Easter time on earth. But wouldn't you love to know what exactly happened during that week, at least in terms of group dynamics? Were the disciples frustrated with Thomas for not believing them? Did Thomas think they were too easily fooled, willing themselves into believing anything just to make themselves feel better? Was there anger? Did Thomas threaten to walk out on them for being foolish? Did they threaten to kick Thomas out for once again doubting, for demanding to know in his own way and refusing to believe them? Did the two sides become entrenched, which is what so often happens when two sides both assume they are right and justified in their righteousness?

I don't know the answers to any of these questions. No one does, for again, the text says nothing of what happened during that weeks' time. But yet, the only thing we do know is that the disciples failed to convince Thomas that Jesus has arisen because the next week Jesus appears again to the group with Thomas present. Thomas still has not come to believe in Jesus' resurrection for he is amazed to see Jesus. And we also can say with reasonable certainty that Thomas and the disciples have not reached the point of throwing each other out the window because they are all gathered together with the doors shut tight! Lastly, we can also say that the disciples were indeed right - Jesus had risen, thanks be to God! It's not that Thomas was wrong. He just had not yet come to the realization that the disciples themselves had.

So, how in the world can this speak to the current debate on guns about to happen in the Senate this week and next? I see a couple of ways. One is that there is a certain level of entrenchment on this issue. It was recently reported that 13 Republican Senators, led by Rand Paul (KY) and Ted Cruz (TX) are intending to filibuster any bill seeking to prevent gun violence. You could say they are like Thomas, doubting the veracity that through banning assault weapons and high capacity magazines and through instituting universal background checks will gun violence tragedies like the one in Newtown, CT be stopped.

Secondly, just as the disciples were right in their knowledge that indeed Jesus had arisen, so are we who believe that banning assault weapons and high capacity magazines, and instituting universal background checks on all gun sales will dramatically reduce mass gun shootings. We are right and history bears us out. When a much softer assault weapons ban was in place between 1994-2004 the number of these mass shootings was far lower than it is now. We know we are right because in other societies when these measures are in place, they do not experience these kinds of tragedies at all. But being right, unfortunately, has little to do with enacting good policies. If being right was all that was needed, there never would have been an Iraq War, minimum wage would be far higher than it is, and Obamacare would be far more reaching and would not have been controversial in its creation.

One possibility for Thomas' doubting is that he knew deep down the disciples were right, but he was frustrated he did not get to see, like everyone else, the resurrected Jesus. Maybe he hoped for another visitation. Again, we do not know for sure. But we do know that another visitation - the divine intervention of Jesus into human history - is what it took for Thomas to come to believe. The word of the disciples was not enough. Maybe the other disciples quit arguing with him early on into the week out of sheer frustration and just silently (and perhaps not so silently) prayed for another visit from Jesus the risen Christ.

It took divine intervention for Thomas to believe. And I believe that is what it will take with the gun issue as well - a visitation from Jesus. Now, hear me out. I am NOT saying that we should give up advocating, give up making calls, give up emailing or sending in clergy letters like United Methodists are doing throughout the United States, urging Senators to vote for S. 649 and S. 150. God forbid we quit! We absolutely must continue to call and email, continue to recruit clergy to send in their clergy letters, and strongly urge others to do the same! But I am saying that with those who are so entrenched with doubt, or with fear of the gun lobby, or with whatever reason they cling to that prevents common sense legislation that will reduce gun violence, we must also pray that they receive a visit from the risen Christ. We must pray for divine intervention.

And like the disciples, we will spend the week, or month, or year, or however long it takes, being faithful to Jesus, lovingly inviting the Thomas' in our life to join us, no matter if they are named Senator Paul or Senator Cruz, or Senator Rubio, etc. We will lovingly invite them to join us in manifesting the Kingdom of God on earth, a Kingdom where there are no assault weapons, no high capacity magazines, and where there is love, compassion and accountability. We are faithful in what we do, we witness to what we know is right - and we are indeed right - and we invite even those entrenched on the other side from ours to join us in experiencing Kingdom life in its fullest. We wait hoping. We wait expectantly knowing Jesus will visit them and us. Come Lord Jesus come. And let us be working while we want.

To call your both of your Senators and urge them to support universal background checks (S. 649) and a ban on assault weapons and high capacity magazines (S. 150), please call 1-888-427-0484, ask for your Senator's office and then here is a sample script: "Hi, my name is                        and as a United Methodist and someone who believes in ending gun violence, I urge Senator                              to support S. 150 (Assault Weapons Ban) and S. 649 (Safe Communities, Safe Schools Act)." 

And don't forget to call BOTH of your Senators!

March 19: Why Jeremiah Still Weeps

The snow has yet to melt off the graves of the twenty children who were slaughtered at Sandy Hook Elementary in Newtown, CT and Congress has forgotten about them entirely. As I write this (March 19), Spring has not yet started and Senate Democratic leadership has given up bringing to the Senate floor legislation that would ban assault weapons and the high capacity magazines used to kill 20 children and 6 teachers. As I write this, it is also ten years ago to the day that the invasion of Iraq began. Somehow, in a truly sickening way, the symmetry is startling.

Whether it was ten years ago when Democrats gave in so easily to President Bush's mad dash towards preemptive war, or the current Democratic cave-in to the power of the NRA and their absolute refusal to value life above gun manufacturing profits, Democratic leadership seems to be permanently impotent.

I knew that no matter how horrible the massacre in Newtown was, that the shock and outrage we all felt would not last through the holidays into the Spring. We are just not wired for long periods of attention.

I must admit though, I did have some hope upon seeing President Obama's State of the Union speech where he ended it calling - no, shaming - members of Congress by demanding that the people of Newtown deserved a vote on preventing gun violence. He called Congress out stating rightfully that the people of Aurora, the people of Tucson, the people of Oak Creek, WI, and the people of Chicago all deserve a vote. Heck, he could have named practically every city and town in the United States as gun violence has become so pervasive and we have grown so accustomed to it. I can still remember his speech. I can almost hear his voice as he called for Congressional action. I had a small glimmer of hope then, that perhaps this might be enough to rip the Republican and Democratic umbilical cord tied to the NRA.

I should have known better. The problem with this issue isn't Republican entrenchment, as it is with so many other issues. The problem is Democratic backbone - or a lack thereof. Senate Democrats are refusing to bring the assault weapons ban and the ban on high capacity magazines to the floor for a vote. Newtown, Tucson, Aurora, Oak Creek, Chicago, everywhere, you don't get a vote. You do not get a vote despite the fact that a ban on assault weapons is favored by 57% of the US public, and despite the fact that a ban on high capacity magazines is favored by close to 70%. How foolish I was to believe that if the American people wanted something they would get it. Not here, not with this Congress and not with the Senate Democratic leadership who seem incapable of leading.

115 days from the shooting in Newtown and we have lost the outrage and the determination to "do something to end gun violence" that we kept hearing elected "leaders" ramble on about.

Ten years since we invaded Iraq.

There is something so horribly poetic that we give up on ending gun violence the same day that, ten years ago, we gave up on common sense alternatives to unnecessary warfare. Ten years ago we had a President and Vice-President with an insane certainty in their own righteousness. Today we have an insane lobby group with enormous money and a paranoid fear of the repeal of the 2nd Amendment; something I will bet my legs will not happen in my lifetime or in ten lifetimes to come. Insanity reigned ten years ago and insanity reigns today. Any political opposition offering reason and peace as viable alternatives, both then and now, is out to lunch.

Why is our society so violent and so resistant to rational thinking such as searching for weapons of mass destruction before we initiate full-scale warfare? Why are we so focused on preserving the right to shoot hundreds of bullets in literally seconds - something that actually is not a right guaranteed by any reasonable reading of the Constitution - at the expense of lives of our children? And why are we so paralyzed and resistant to reasonable action such as banning assault weapons and high capacity magazines, or actually demanding that the rationale for preemptive war be proven before we kill hundreds of thousands of people? Maybe smarter people can answer these questions. I cannot.

I am not surprised that there are some who want access to military-style weapons because they, who happen to mostly be white middle-aged men, believe that there will be a government takeover, which happens to be led by a Black man.

I am not surprised that there are some who want to invade other countries and mask those efforts with lies and deceit and who are pushing us still towards another unnecessary war with Iran.

I am not even surprised that the Democratic leadership caved ten years ago and today and pose little threat to the forces which drove us to war then and which drive us towards ever-increasing gun violence today.

I am not surprised that the rest of us have grown used to unrestrained violence and those who profit from it and a lack of leadership standing up to it.

I am not surprised that the response of people of faith to all of this has been at best muffled outrage or at worst, acquiescence.

I just am not surprised anymore.

And this is why Jeremiah still weeps. 

We are a Nation of Flaws

One of the primary talking points the White House constantly puts out in regards to their plans to reform the broken immigration system is that "we are a nation of laws." In fact, it is often the first thing President Obama says when he talks about the needs for immigration reform. When saying this, the President is intending to say we must hold those who are in the United States without documentation accountable for their legal status. "We are a nation of laws" means to reinforce that society is essentially orderly and fair.

We are a nation of laws. Yet, as we have seen in recent weeks, the rhetoric of being a nation of laws and the reality can often be far apart. Even the most liberal among political leaders still frame the immigration discussion as being primarily about securing the border and insist that any pathway to citizenship be rigorous and difficult for undocumented immigrants, thereby somehow ensuring the slogan that we are indeed a nation of laws is more reality than just rhetoric. However, somehow this great respect for legality does not easily translate top other areas. For instance, the belief that "we are a nation of laws" does not seem to apply to those arbitrarily deemed an enemy of the state as there is no legal process in place for those the President chooses to put on a kill list, even for those who have U.S. citizenship. Why doesn't the President, if he dare discuss the drone  attacks at all, use the slogan, "we are a nation of laws" for that? Yet, though we have kill lists, including some American citizens, that are not worthy of due process protections, why do we tell undocumented immigrants and the poor that we are a nation of laws and that they should be held accountable for their "illegal" behavior?

We are a nation of laws. Why was this not said by the President or the many members of Congress, especially those with close ties to lobby firms who represent giant financial institutions, when the financial meltdown occurred in 2008. Hedge fund managers, predatory lenders, and financial institutions all got away with bank robbery - literally. Some of these huge corporations accepted bailouts and rewarded CEO's while millions of people lost their jobs and their life savings. What's more, not only were people in positions of power and influence not held responsible, many have attained new positions of power and influence. However, we will be insistent that any pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants - many of whom do back-breaking low-paid work in horrible conditions with no protections and no high-priced firms lobbying on their behalf - includes enormous fines and back taxes (to help make up for the oil corporations which pay nothing in some cases), and then wait years, maybe even decades before they are able to complete that pathway. But still, we insist that we are a nation of laws.

Yes, we are a nation of laws. Yet, we knowingly committed torture and besides a few low-level guards at Abu Ghraib, no one was tried or even brought up on charges of war crimes for devising a policy of torture and then implementing it and carefully concealing it from Congress and the public. People like John Yoo, David Addington, Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney and George W. Bush were responsible for torturing perhaps dozens of people, perhaps more. We do not know for sure. Has this elite group of people, far above prosecution it seems, been held responsible for the war crimes they clearly have committed since we are a nation of laws? Absolutely not. They have written books and been on book tours and made handsome royalties. Or they even dare to teach in law schools for heaven's sake! Yet, we must make sure that any undocumented immigrants who so much as get drunk in public not be allowed to have access to any pathway to citizenship. Yes indeed, we are a nation of laws.

And it is funny how and why these laws are made. I read the other day that Representative Stephen Fincher, a Republican from my home state of Tennessee has introduced a bill that would mandate drug testing for everyone who receives any form of welfare. Funny how we didn't drug test all of the Bank CEO's who got hundreds of millions of dollars in government bailouts. We don't drug test the lobbyists who live on Capitol Hill and persuade Congress to continue to pour billions of dollars into the defense industry so that we can build weapons we have no need for. No one in Congress would even dare mention that. But yet, we want to make sure that people who get hundreds of dollars - barely enough to exist or get by - do not use drugs. We must make sure we help only the very few "deserving poor," a distinction that is solely a modern creation. There is no biblical basis for distinguishing the deserving from the non-deserving poor at all. Yep, we sure are a nation of laws.

You know, as I was writing this and saying this over and over - we are a nation of laws, it started coming out differently. We are a nation of laws slowly became, "we are a nation of flaws." Perhaps that is what President Obama and all the rest of the politicians who mindlessly spew out such nonsense really mean after all. We are a nation of flaws. We are a nation where we punish people who are poor for, well, being poor. And we subtly excuse those who are wealthy and connected because some people, like the corporations they control (or that control them) are deemed "too big to fail."

We are a nation of flaws. We have two systems of justice: one for the powerful and affluent and one for everyone else. The old adage, it is better to be guilty and rich than innocent and poor is not old and not an adage. It is a timeless truth that remains as real today as it was in the days of Scripture.

God continually rebuked the wealthy and the powerful for withholding justice from the poor and the vulnerable because God knew we are a people of flaws. Biblical justice, on the other hand, was achieved through legally restoring those wrongfully accused and inclusively creating the opportunity for equal justice for the marginalized. Rather than a means of harsh punishment, God intended justice to be a source of healing to all of society (Exodus 23:6-8; Leviticus 19:15; Deuteronomy 1:17 and 16:19-20). The prophets Amos and Isaiah specifically point out that in utilizing the judicial system as a means to secure power only for the affluent and to maintain the poor and marginalized as a perpetual underclass the powerful are in direct opposition to God’s basic intentions for justice (Isaiah 1:21-23; 5:20-23; Amos 2:6-8; 5:7, 10-13).

Yes, we are indeed a nation of flaws. We could be a nation of laws, but we must first address the flaws and that can only start when we recognize that our system of justice favors the rich over the poor, the powerful over the vulnerable. We must insist our elected leaders stop the rhetoric - that we are a nation of laws - and state the truth - we are a nation of flaws. But we can be a nation of laws, a nation where there is no partiality, where all people are treated equally and given a fair chance to succeed. And one place where it can start is by reforming our immigration system and focusing on reunifying families and providing a pathway to citizenship with minimal obstacles. Just saying we are a nation of laws does not mean that justice and equality are real. We have to change things and work to make them real, otherwise we will remain a nation of flaws. 

Building a National Movement with Mainlines Leading the Way? Part 2

This is the second of a two part post on building a national movement around immigration reform with mainline denominations leading the way. The first part, which you can read here, recalled the vital role mainline denominations played in the Civil Rights Movement. 

But one thing kept bugging me as I read Findlay's book many years ago. I honestly could not even realize what it was until these last few years. Throughout Findlay's book, Findlay showed how the mobilization of mainline church people happened almost without exception by an organization formed outside the actual denominations. Findlay showed the power at that time of the National Council of Churches and particularly of the newly created Commission on Religion and Race, which facilitated much of the partnering work between civil rights organizations and mainline denominations on the ground, while the NCC directed much of the faith direct advocacy in Washington DC.

The creation of outside organizations to focus on organizing faith communities for struggles for social justice - whether that centered on immigrants' rights, farmworkers, anti-nuclear and anti-war peacemaking efforts, or globalization - has become somewhat of a modus operandi in mobilizing mainline denominations. While denominations have been engaged in educational efforts, or passing resolutions, or making statements to show their dedication to the work of justice, the actual work of organizing - building movements among people in ways that are significant and politically impactful and have a direct impact on real improvements in people's lives from a national scale have largely been accomplished by outside organizations. 

Why is that? Why aren't denominations on the front lines of building grassroots movements in the struggle for justice on a national scale?

I honestly do not know all of the answers. I can only speculate. Perhaps denominational leaders, whose members are both fully engaged in the struggles for justice and fully engaged in maintaining the status quo, have been absent in building national movements because they fear angering a good portion of their base. Perhaps denominations have been absent in building national grassroots movements because they value abstract educational efforts and institutional actions like passing resolutions and making statements more than the far more difficult relationship-building work involved in movements. Perhaps denominations have been absent from building national grassroots movements because when institutions are dying the inclination among denominational leaders is institutional maintenance and turf protection rather than missional engagement and incarnational relationships among people directly impacted by broken systems.

I doubt one or perhaps even all of these reasons fully explain why, but for whatever reason, mainline denominations have depended on outside groups to create national movements for justice. Until now.

Over the past four years United Methodists have engaged in close to 900 public witness events in support of just and humane immigration reform. This has been done without the help of any extra-denominational organizations. Notably, the organizing focus has taken place largely outside the basic structures of the institutional church as well. In fact, the primary structure recently created: Rapid Response Teams, which are started by unpaid volunteers in their conferences dedicated to mobilizing their conference to defend and support the rights of immigrants. The established church structures have at times followed the lead of the momentum of the grassroots mobilization efforts begun by the Rapid Response Teams, but these established structures have not created the momentum themselves. That is done by these teams, largely made up by people who are immigrants or who have close relationships with immigrant communities. 

These incarnational relationships are the very heart of the work of organizing for the Rapid Response Teams. United Methodists in local churches have focused on creating spaces for incarnational relationships between church folks and those directly impacted by the broken immigration system and from that advocacy naturally emanates.

Therefore, all of the advocacy and political engagement is innately missional in nature. United Methodists are not politically engaged in such large numbers or with such tremendous results because we have gone after United Methodists with similar political leanings. Instead, the numbers and results flow from biblically-based, missionally-charged, passion-filled incarnational relationships between a predominantly Anglo denomination and immigrant communities. And as far as I can tell from conversations I have had and from the books I have read, this kind of movement-building has never happened this way before from within the denomination. But it is definitely happening now.

One thing that has been truly fascinating to watch is the little that established structural assets have provided in this work. Mandated positions and structurally-ordained committees have provided limited help in building the movement among United Methodists unless they were peopled by those individuals with passion and who valued and practiced incarnational relationships among immigrant communities.

There is certainly a role for established structures in building movements for justice, but the belief that institutional structures automatically mean that effective advocacy and justice-oriented ministries incarnationally connected among groups directly impacted by broken systems are happening is an idea whose time probably never came. Mandated positions and structurally-ordained committees probably make us feel better, but they rarely build national movements for justice. I am not ready to openly advocate for their entire removal, but I strongly believe that they should focus their work on identifying teams of individuals incarnated among people directly impacted by broken systems and take whatever resources they have at their disposal and use it to support those efforts to mobilize and build movements.

While the media focus and funding money have largely been spent focusing on efforts to recruit high level religious conservatives (otherwise known as grasstops), a slow but steady undercurrent has been happening that has gone for too long unrecognized. A fledgling but increasingly growing movement among United Methodists and other mainlines dedicated to developing incarnational relationships among immigrant communities has been making an impact no matter how little attention and resources have been shared.

The obituaries for mainline denominations have long been written. And they actually may be correct - mainline denominations may be slowly dying and the direction might be irreversible. But they ain't dead yet and while they still have life they have much they can and frankly, must give towards building movements for justice. The work of United Methodists over the past several years prove that mainlines do not need to wait for someone or some group outside the denomination to come and use them redemptively. We have all we need right now and we must not wait any longer. The only question in front of us is if we dare to think creatively, love sacrificially, relate incarnationally, and advocate passionately, then we have all we need right now. So, lets build us a movement why don't we? 

Building a National Movement with Mainlines Leading the Way? Part 1

This is the first of a two part posting. The second part will be posted later this week. 

As we gear up for another run at achieving just and humane immigration reform in 2013 there is much that is different for this year and this attempt than in past years. What jumps out of course is the growing Hispanic/Latino/Latina population in the United States and their impact in the 2012 election. That more than anything has caused Republicans (well, most Republicans) to put away much of the anti-immigrant rhetoric and begin serious discussions for reform. Rather than talk about if there should be an attempt to reform the irreparably broken immigration system, there is widespread acceptance on both sides of the aisle that something must be done. Yes, things have changed since 2007. That seems obvious.

But there is something else rarely, if ever, talked about that I see every day and that I believe will have an impact this year. The difference that i am talking about is the role of mainline denominations, particularly my own denomination, the United Methodist Church. Now, much - perhaps too much - is made about the recent engagement of religious conservatives. I, for one, am glad to see religious conservatives finally speaking out in favor of reform, even though their proposals fall short of the reform we really need. I have written elsewhere about the failure of religious conservatives to offer a genuinely faithful voice on this issue so I will not spend more time on that here. But, I do believe that what has been happening in recent years within the United Methodist Church has been incredibly innovative.

The United Methodist Church, like most mainline denominations, has a long and historic engagement in issues of social justice. Mainline denominations have been leaders in the faith community in the civil rights, women's rights, farmworker rights, gay rights and now the immigrants' rights movements. There is indeed much to be proud of if you are a member of a mainline denomination. Church People in the Struggle by James F. Findlay Jr. is a wonderful resource if you want to read the story of predominantly Anglo denominations engaged in the Civil Rights Movement.

The vital role mainline denominations played in the Civil Rights Movement  is seen in other history books as well, though not as pronounced as in Findlay's book. Deep within the stories of books like Taylor Branch's incredible trilogy of the life of Martin Luther King, especially Parting the Waters, Jack Mendelsohn's The Martyrs, and Charles Payne's incredible I've Got the Light of Freedom, among many others, show the vitality of the church's role in framing struggles for basic human rights within faith messages and the unshakable demand among people of faith that those rights be shared by all.

In one of my favorite books, Judgment Days by Nick Kotz, Kotz describes how, during the push for the 1964 Civil Rights Act, support from mainline denominations was imperative. Rallies, non-stop prayer vigils at the Lincoln Memorial, meetings between President Johnson and religious leaders where he asked them to function as "the prophets of our time" (p. 144) all contributed mightily to the ultimate passage of the landmark legislation.

My favorite stories weren't of rallies or prophetic sermons though. I loved reading individual stories of the creative ways advocacy was done towards members of Congress. I loved reading how the Methodist pastor of an influential banker in Omaha, NE asked that banker to speak to conservative Senator Curtis from Nebraska and encouraged his support for the bill. (p. 144) Or, how Republican Senator Miller from Iowa, because of the influence of church groups in his state, became one of the first Republicans to come out in favor of the civil rights legislation. (p. 150)

When it comes down to crunch time, rallies do not weigh as heavy as personal relationships and in this case, mainline churches  and their leaders used those relationships creatively and redemptively.

But one thing kept bugging me as I read Findlay's book many years ago. I honestly could not even realize what it was until these last few years....

Rediscovering Voices of Our Past: A Critique of The Right Church

I think we all have friends, even close friends that we know to avoid certain topics when we talk. I have some friends who I have to avoid deeply theological discussions with simply because there are such sharp disagreements, while there are other friends with whom I dare not bring up politics.

Rare are the friends who we can go to with any topic for conversation. Those trusted few are the people we can unburden ourselves because we know we are loved and accepted no matter what we say. But even more than just unburdening ourselves, we look forward to hearing their thoughts, their wisdom. We trust what they say not because they agree with us or us with them, but because these are the people who can speak into our lives because we know and trust where they have come from as well as where they are going and that is where, at least in part, we want to go too.

But I also notice all too often that the voices I listen too are voices that look like and sound like me. They too often are voices that reflect my social, economic, cultural, and political framework - box is another word for this - and so, by listening to voices who are largely located in the same boxes as I am, I become trapped in that box, inadvertently closing myself off to other voices, newer voices that could create illumination, providing the wisdom that comes from a diversity of perspectives.

I was reminded this as I read The Right Church by Charles Gutenson. In his excellent book, Gutenson reminds the Church of a wellspring of voices that we all too often ignore, or sadly, did not even know existed. These are the voices of our parents in the faith. In today's church, where newer is always better and church leaders seem obsessed on the never-ending and never-fulfilling pursuit of cultural relevance, the voices of our Church parents sound quaint and nice, but hardly necessary. But Gutenson reminds us that they in fact are still vital.

My cynicism with the focus of churches always being on copying the latest worship style or church structure, or the hottest form of discipling to come out of the most recent church to attain the holy grail of mega-churchdom made reading The Right Church quite refreshing. I am afraid i am just as guilty as the next Christian of so narrowing my list of influences that are far too often as culturally trapped as I am so that our Church parents never get a hearing. I do not pay attention to them because I assume that today's world is too complex, our problems too beyond what they faced. Gutenson rightly calls this "chronological snobbery" (p. xiv). Their voices, if not drowned out entirely by the latest Matt Redmond chorus sung 27 times over at the highest decibel level, are but faint whispers in our cavernous buildings built out of our own vanity.

Gutenson refreshingly brings these voices alive and smartly engages them in the significant discussions of today. Hearing from the voices of the past, frankly, is little more than a empty undertaking if they are not allowed to speak to us from the context in which they lived. This can be difficult to do. You actually have to know the contexts from which the voices of our Church parents speak - and Gutenson does. People like Origen, Luther, Clement, Basil, Gregory of Nyssa and Gregory of Nazianzus, John Chrysostom, and good old Augustine are people who could speak clearly to us today if we would but listen.

Now, I must say I am not always crazy to hear what they have to say and I found myself disagreeing with some of what they had written, which is amply supplied throughout the book. But, I reminded myself, isn't that just the point? I can disagree, but even when I disagree with much of what they say or how they lived, there are almost always kernels of truth and potential moments of transformation that can have a deep and lasting impact on how I view the world, and even more, how I missionally engage the world. In a church ripe with division and absolutist worldviews driven far too often by our secularly-based worldviews, perhaps engaging our Church parents can revive the lost art of nuance and a keener appreciation of distinction.

The world needs us to engage with a wide array of voices, challenging our social, economic, cultural, and political strongholds, shaping and molding us to reflect the fullness of the Kingdom of God since in far too many of our communities of faith we remain segregated and isolated from social, economic, cultural, and political diversity. We treat diversity in all its forms as a luxury, a hobby, and pursue with reckless abandon people and their resources so that we can maintain our institutions and bureaucracy, forfeiting our leadership, our calling, as the greatest and most vital force for change in the world today, and that change must include transcultural interactions. Books like this one, provide the bridge for a few of these interactions to take place. The truth is, the voices Gutenson helps bring to life have experienced much of what we are facing presently. These voices give us insight into:

• how to face divisions in the church for "nothing is strong than the Church" says John Chrysostom. (p. 35)
• the significance of discipleship so that "the Church might be replenished" reminds Gregory of Nyssa. (p. 47)
• the importance of free will so that, as Augustine himself knew, once we are set free from sin, "we are made the servants of love." (p. 74)
• the sin of maintaining wealth in the midst of poverty as Ambrose says, "you are not making the gift of your possessions to the poor person. You are handing over to [them] what is [theirs]." (p. 93)
• our command to care for God's creation for Clement of Alexandria reminds us that, "God not only cares for the universe, God cares for all of its parts." (p. 107)
• questions of war, one of which is asked by Tertullian, "shall it be lawful to make an occupation of the sword, when the Lord proclaims that he who uses the sword shall perish by the sword?" (p. 142)

 Yes, some of our Church parents can be like the crazy uncle at Thanksgiving, asking questions that make us squirm. But maybe the Church needs to squirm a little bit. Regardless, Gutenson reminds us that the voices of our Church parents can still speak to us in relevant and significant ways. My main critique of The Right Church is its length. It could have been longer, speaking to many more pertinent issues. Lord knows, they have much to say and we need to hear more voices outside our own.