My review of Faith-Rooted Organizing continues.
Though their book is clearly grounded in both the Old and New Testaments, I wish Alexia and Peter would have explained in greater detail how a NT faith requires a love and justice oriented social movement. Though not usually interpreted in this way, I believe that the Sermon on the Mount is consistent with the Isaiah Messianic passages. If dikaiosune is translated justice (as it is in Spanish, French, Italian and Latin translations), then the Sermon has two themes---the kingdom of God and justice. "Seek first God's kingdom and his justice" (6:33) and "hunger and thirst after justice" (5:5). Jesus came to fulfill the Law and the Prophets which were built upon love and justice. In chapter 7, we are urged to be doers---doers of love and justice.
The book of James is also consistent with the Messianic passages and the Sermon. Pure religion gives highest priority to the oppressed poor, to combining faith and works of justice on behalf of the poor.
According to Alexia and Peter, the following Christian institutions are now teaching faith-rooted organizing: Auburn Seminary, Biola University, Claremont School of Theology, Covenant Theological Seminary, Denver Seminary, Fuller Theological Seminary, Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, New York Theological Seminary, Seattle School of Theology and Psychology, Talbot Seminary at Biola University, Union Theological Seminary (especially the Poverty Initiative) and Vanguard University. One of these schools/seminaries needs to create a NT theology of society with the same urgency that the Manhattan Project built the atomic bomb.
Most of you received a recent email from me with a chart of America's Social Inequalities which described how extensive and damaging America's social evils have been. I do not know of any NT theology that adequately wrestles with these social evils, that helps us understand them and how these deadly systems work. Neither do we have a NT theology of social justice, of a kingdom of God justice that incarnates Jubilee justice for the oppressed poor.
After citing seemingly dozens of inspiring and successful examples of church-rooted organizing, the authors make this sobering observation:
Rev. James M. Lawson Jr. says that we do not have a movement for justice in the United States. Many people in many places and times are working for justice, but our communities and our society are still unjust and unhealthy in many ways. [think lack of immigration reform, mass incarceration, economic inequality, gender inequality, etc.] . . . . We do not have a movement for justice, Lawson tells us. Rather, we have the seeds of a movement.
This is why we need a crash effort to create a NT theology of society to support Alexia and Peter's fine book on organizing through the church.
A quotation from Faith-Rooted Organizing:
The church has, unfortunately, been complicit in perpetuating some societal lies [evils]. . . . . The church's complicity manifests in its repetition of societal lies or its silence in the face of them, ignoring the Scriptures.
If the church does not have a comprehensive NT theology of society covering social evil and social justice, two things happen: 1) a social vacuum is created into which social evils and systems of oppression rush to fill, and 2) worse yet, the biblically illiterate church too often buys into an evil ideology and then becomes a part of ethnocentrism and oppression, legitimating or participating or tolerating social evil.
Michelle Alexander, author of the New Jim Crow, is calling for a social movement to eliminate both mass incarceration and the racism/ethnocentrism behind it. Faith-Rooted Organizing is just the book to inform and assist the church if it wishes to be a part of this justice movement.
Compare David Brooks with Pope Francis, Martin Luther King, Robert Reich, Bob Lord and Pierce Nahigyan; they all fundamentally disagree with David Brooks.
David Brooks is often a voice of sanity and wisdom on public policy issues, but recently (New York Times, Jan. 16, 2014, "The Inequality Problem,") he blew it, and blew it badly, especially when compared to Pastor, Prophet, Pope Francis on economic inequality (The Joy of the Gospel). I am angry at David Brooks, seething at his clever demonizing of the oppressed poor, his exoneration of the rich oppressors. I am not the only one seething; see Robert Reich's article "David Brooks' Utter Ignorance About Inequality," Jan. 20, Nation of Change. http://www.nationofchange.org/david-brooks-utter-ignorance-about-inequality-1390142670. Also Bob Lord's article in the Nation of Change, Jan.20, 2014 entitled "Dr. King's Nightmare." http://www.nationofchange.org/dr-king-s-nightmare-1390137955
I heard once that Brooks professes to be a Christian; if true, this makes his dangerous half-truths posing as the whole truth doubly tragic, triply evil.
In colonial times, Brooks would have been an excellent founding father, possibly a Thomas Jefferson type who had flashes of intellectual brilliance combined with the social evils of ethnocentrism and oppression. The founding fathers were a rich, white, male elite who held a deep-seated belief in American exceptionalism, an ethnocentrism which justified, even required, expansion. American exceptionalism is an arrogant, erroneous, dangerous sense of chosenness. American ethnocentrism is the supposed superiority of Anglo-Saxon culture/civilization. American expansionism---Manifest Destiny, from the Atlantic coast to the Pacific coast, no matter what ethnic group was in the way. These three "e's" are the root of all kinds of American social evils. E., E., and E. legitimated horrible systems of oppression such Indian genocide, African enslavement and the Mexican American War which took one-half of Mexico's land.
This systems of oppression created what Orlando Patterson calls social death, in addition to millions of physical deaths. Social death is Patterson's term for severely damaged cultures, severely dysfunctional social institutions. For example, the Plains Indians economic system collapsed when the buffalo were exterminated and their land was stolen. Much of the rest of the culture was devastated. The evidence of social death can be found in dysfunctional marriages, families and communities.
Out of the above factors, flow high rates of poverty, unemployment, crime, drugs, disease and abortions.
Brooks only examines a small portion of American history and society, ignores the ethnocentrism/oppression causes and only looks at the results---the "interrelated social problems of the poor." Brooks ends up blaming the victim, demonizing the poor, and exonerating the rich.
Many Americans end up analyzing Haitian poverty much like Brooks analyzes American poverty. They ignore 500 years of Spanish, French and American ethnocentrism and oppression. The Haitian chain of causes and results can be summed in one word: ethnocentrismoppressionpovertydisease. The biblical solution can also be summed up in one word: lovejusticereconciliationshalom.
Or James 1:27 through 2:26 sums the issue up like this: Worthless religion/churches dishonor the oppressed poor, honor the rich oppressors; pure religion/churches put the poor first, call out the rich oppressors, combine love and justice to engage in abundant good works.
Brooks is right that "Suddenly the whole world is talking about income inequality." He needs to listen carefully to others before he writes any more misleading garbage. For example, Pierce Nahigyan in the Jan. 21, Nation of Change, "8 Facts About American Inequality." http://www.nationofchange.org/8-facts-about-american-inequality-1390315279
1. 400 Americans have more wealth than half of all Americans combined.
2. America has the second-highest level of income inequality, after Chile.
3. The current state of inequality can be traced back to 1979.
4. Non-union wages are also affected by the decline of unions.
5. There is less opportunity for intergenerational mobility.
6. Tax cuts to the wealthiest have not improved the economy or created jobs.
7. Incomes for the top 1% have increased (but the top 0.01% make even more).
8. The majority of Congress does not feel your pain; one-half are millionaires.
Both the abolitionist movement and the civil rights movement achieved a paradigm shift (revolutionary change, transformation) in terms of freedom, but neither movement achieved a paradigm shift in terms of justice (economic justice, jubilee justice, kingdom of God justice for the oppressed poor). Freedom without justice is a hollow victory and often soon lost. Slavery was quickly replaced by neoslavery (Jim Crow laws, segregation, sharecropping and incarceration). After the victories of the 1960s, legal segregation was replaced by mass incarceration and massive economic inequality (1980-2014).
Both social movements could have used the wisdom of Kenneth Young (The Problem With Racial Reconciliation) and Bill Moyer (Doing Democracy). Both movements needed to be grounded in a comprehensive NT theology of society based on its teaching on the social evils of ethnocentrism and oppression/injustice, and kingdom of God justice with social reconciliation. Unfortunately, such a theology didn't exist and still doesn't exist. Into the social/spiritual vacuum rushed unchecked social evil.
I recently learned that the famous Republican who uttered, "Extremism in the pursuit of liberty is no vice," also said "Moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue." Most white American evangelicals are weak, not even moderate, in their understanding and doing of kingdom of God justice, even in the year 2014. What happens when white American evangelicals are not guided by a NT theology of society?
Evangelical abolitionists who zealously supported the freedom of slaves did not with equal zeal pursue jubilee justice for freed slaves. During the civil rights movement, white evangelicals for the most part, either sat on the sidelines or actively opposed freedom and justice for blacks. In the 1980s most evangelicals supported President Reagan who initiated the War on Drugs/mass incarceration and massive economic inequality. Even in 2014, few evangelicals are vigorously opposing mass incarceration and massive economic inequality/oppression.
According to Isaiah 58, God despises a pious spirituality that is divorced from the doing of justice. Hint: so does the Sermon on the Mount. Amos 5:24 (The Message) reads: "I want justice---oceans of it." Amos 5:24 (Noble paraphrase): "I want artesian wells of justice, constantly flowing streams of justice, in society." Mt. 6:33 (Noble paraphrase): "I want kingdom of God justice, a jubilee justice for the oppressed poor."
Don't try to worship both God and Money at the same time; instead worship God on Sunday and Money during the week, as most Pharisees and American evangelicals do.
To summarize, I call upon the American evangelical church to fully engage in several social movements at the same time. Initiate and support social movements to eliminate 1) the unjust mass incarceration of young black and Latino males, 2) the unjust, massive economic inequality, the systems of political and economic/financial oppression that widen the gap between the rich and poor, 3) expose and eliminate the false concept of race, the systems of racism, racist oppression, and the racialized worldview; biblically these concepts of social evil would be called ethnocentrism and oppression, 4) pursue, do, biblical justice and reconciliation, and 5) which is tied to 4, urgently create a NT theology of society. I state that we need social movements to accomplish the above because the status quo evangelical church and its colleges, universities and seminaries are, in my opinion, only marginally involved. But there may be efforts that I am unaware of; please inform me of any aggressive evangelical actions that are addressing the above issues, efforts that go beyond tokenism.
In my last email essay, I discussed Doing Democracy: The MAP Model for Organizing Social Movements by Bill Moyer.
In spite Lincoln's beautiful rhetoric about "a government of the people, by the people and for the people," here are the brutal facts according to Doing Democracy:
It is worth noting that as a result of the founding father's power elite idea of democracy during the first 20 years of U.S. history, only propertied, rich, white men, who comprised less than 10 percent of the population, were allowed to vote in federal elections. [this means a plutocracy, not a democracy]
How do the 8 stages of a social movement apply today to the issue of economic inequality/oppression? I suggest that as a nation we may have reached point 6 "Majority Public Opinion," i.e.,
"Majority opposes present conditions and powerholder policies." As a part of economic inequality, I would include poverty, unemployment, low-wage jobs and exploitation of women and immigrants. If so, with a strong push from the American church, we could reach point 7 "Success" this year or next. What are the signs of dramatic progress?
The most powerful religious figure in the world, Pope Francis, is prophetically exposing economic inequality and pushing hard for change; if the American Catholic church would follow his lead, there would be hope for success. The most powerful political figure in the world, President Obama, has identified economic inequality as the defining issue of our time, one he intends to address; If he follows through, the movement has a chance to succeed. The most powerful financial figure in the world, Janet Yellen, new head of the Federal Reserve, is at least partly on board, according to the Jan. 13 article in Time by Rana Foroohar; she describes Yellen as compassionate with a deep concern for the suffering of the unemployed; hopefully she will put the unemployed ahead of inflation on her agenda; pray for unprecedented action by Yellen.
Previously, of course, the Occupy movement, brought the issue of economic inequality to the center of public opinion. A recent cartoon by Jim Morin in the Miami Herald highlights their achievement. Pope Francis is pictured along side a huge man carrying a money bag with 1% written on his back. It is implied that Pope Francis has just said that the "Meek/poor will inherit the earth." The 1% man replies, "Oh really? How can the meek inherit the earth if WE own it?" For a cartoon like this to work, the public already has to have some idea of what Pope Francis and the 1% stand for.
Several other events have brought the issue of poverty to the fore. The 50th anniversary of the War on Poverty has brought forth much commentary; the Shriver Report on the large numbers of women in or near poverty often working in low-wage jobs; the Chamber of Commerce supporting comprehensive immigration reform. Now is the time for the American church to come on board to counter the immense wealth the 1% have to put behind a powerful lobbying effort to maintain the unjust status quo. The 1% will try to make minor reforms replace the needed paradigm shift. It would be great to have a comprehensive NT theology of society focusing on oppression/injustice and justice to guide us; any volunteers?
In terms of the mass incarceration social movement, we may be only at stage 3. If so, we have a lot of work to do. Michelle Alexander may be more optomistic than I am. If so, I bow to her judgment. By the way, CCDA is on board as is the Evangelical Covenant church. Economic inequality, racial inequality and gender inequality are interrelated. Success in economic equality would help with racial equality and gender equality.
More on Janet Yellen. Rana Foroohar believes that Yellen is the "right person" for the "right job." She has the perfect blend of personality, values, skills and experience. Yellen wants to rebalance the relationship between finance and society. She believes the Fed has been "too lax on the regulation of the financial system." Yellen is more concerned about the well-being of Main Street than the profits of Wall Street.
Now I will let Pope Francis have the last word:
The Church must be attractive.... a different way of doing things, of acting, of loving. . . . the values of the Kingdom incarnated on this earth. . . . a question of leaving everything to follow the Lord. . . . Religious men and women who are able to wake this world up." Pastor/prophet Francis is calling us to love the poor, not demonize them, not paternalize them. Francis wants us to love and do justice, not criminalize social problems with failed Prohibition strategies.
The following will consist of a rather lengthy summary of Wright's analysis of Old Testament society, especially of the economics of agriculture or the land. First, a lengthy quotation; note the contrast between Canaanite and Israeli societies:
For example, in contrast to pre-Israeli Canaanite society which was organized along 'feudal' lines, with power residing at the elite top of a highly stratified social pyramid, Israel was a 'tribal' society. It had a kinship structure based on a large number of 'extended-family', land-owning households. These units, which were largely self-sufficient economically, performed most of the socially important functions locally---judicially, economic, cultic, military. Israelite society was more broadly 'egalitarian' rather than 'hierarchical'.
This same contrast is seen in economic life in the forms of land tenure. In the Canaanite city-states, all land was owned by the king and there were feudal arrangements with those who lived and worked on it. In Israel the land was divided up as widely as possible into multiple ownership by extended-families. In order to preserve this system, it could not simply be bought and sold commercially, but had to be retained within the kinship groups. Furthermore, many of the Old Testament laws and institutions of land use indicate an overriding concern to preserve this comparative equality of families on the land and to protect the poorer, the weaker and economically threatened, and not to uphold the status and wealth of a small land-owning nobility.
Likewise, in political life, power in Israelite society was originally very decentralized and located in the wide network of local elders in each community.
Notice how the social, economic and political systems all worked together to provide the framework for a just society. Wright states the following principles:
1. The land was a divine gift from God, but God was still the acknowledged owner. In a sense, God was the landlord and the Israelites were his tenants (Lev. 25:23). All other economic principles flow from this theological foundation.
2. Only on the basis of God as ultimate owner and involved landlord is it safe to talk about individual property rights at the household level. In one sense, this household or kinship ownership was inalienable, almost sacred, because the land could not be bought and sold commercially as was noted above. If each household does not control its own land, then a household is under the control of someone else. This opens the door to oppression.
3. These land rights were balanced by a set of responsibilities. Rights without responsibilities can become the basis for greed. Responsibilities to God included such things as the first fruits of the harvest, the fallow year and the release of debt-pledges. Responsibilities to the family included "redemption procedures, inheritance rules and levirate marriage." Responsibilities to neighbors included "respect for integrity of [land] boundaries, generosity in leaving harvest gleanings [for the poor], and fair treatment of employees." From this balance of rights and responsibilities flowed right relationships---justice-righteousness.
4. When the above principles of justice-righteousness were violated, God sent prophets to warn the offenders. King Ahab was condemned by the prophet Elijah for conniving to obtain Naboth's vineyard. According to God's principle, Naboth could not sell the land. Amos, Isaiah, Micah and others ranted and raved against the injustice of "more and more people being deprived of their ancestral land and forced, by debt-bondage and other means, into a state of virtual serfdom on land once their own but now in the hands of the wealthy, powerful few."
5. Wright cleverly points out the radical nature of the Old Testament socio-economic ethics with a series of statements and questions:
Not that there was any illusion in the Old Testament that such economic obedience to God was easy. It was one thing to celebrate the victories of God in past history. It was another to trust in his ability to produce the future harvest. It was still another to trust his ability to provide you and your family with sustenance for a year if you obeyed the fallow or sabbatical year laws and did not sow a crop---or for two years if you had a double fallow at the jubilee! And could you afford to let your slave, an agricultural capital asset, go free after six years, still less with a generous endowment of your substance, animal and vegetable? Were you not entitled to extract maximum yield from your own fields and vineyards without leaving valuable remainders for others? How could you possibly cancel debts after six years?
6. The land, the resources of the earth, God's creation gift, are to be available to all mankind. "Ownership does not entail absolute right of disposal, but rather responsibility for administration and distribution. The right of all to use is prior to the right of any to own." Private property, yes, but only under carefully controlled conditions. "There is no mandate in the creation material for private exclusive use, nor for hoarding or consuming at the expense of others."
7. Why are the socio-economic principles spelled out in such detail and with such care? To counter the corrupting impact of the Fall. Greedy, oppressive possession of the land replaced responsible property rights. Strife and warfare replaced sharing. Covetousness and materialism turned into idolatry. The poor became objects of exploitation rather than opportunities for sharing. "The effect of the fall was that the desire for growth became obsessive and idolatrous, the scale of growth became excessive for some at the expense of others, and the means of growth became filled with greed, exploitation and injustice." Wright concludes: "But in a fallen world, where human greed, injustice and incompetence have already put chasms between the rich and poor, that creation principle of sharing cannot be approached without the redemption principle of sacrifice and the costly waiving of self-interest."
