State of the Union Follow-Up
I went with my friends from the Issachar Community to a “State of the Union Party” at a church on Denver’s Capitol Hill, Tuesday night. I found out that State of the Union parties aren’t as much fun as Superbowl parties. But it was still a good evening, and I want to thank Caleb Seeling for putting it together. The pastor welcomed us (maybe 75 people) warmly, telling us that he was learning to be an open-minded listener, even though, "I'm a Republican. I only wear sandals when it's warm outside. I drive an SUV, I don't hug trees, and I like almost everything George Bush does."
I knew the president’s speech would be mostly boilerplate political rah-rah, as these things always are. Still, I thought the president did a good job, and there were enough interesting sub-plots swirling about the House chambers to make for interesting political drama. I don’t know why, but watching the speech on a huge screen was somehow more engaging than on my tiny TV at home.
The one thing I was really hoping was to hear the president make a strong statement about decreasing our country’s severe dependency upon oil. I agree with Thomas Friedman of the New York Times that this is an essential step to addressing both domestic economic concerns as well as our entanglements in the Middle East and elsewhere around the globe. But apparently he talked about it during my only potty break of the evening, so I missed it!
After the speech, we had an open forum to discuss broad topics related to Christian political involvement and social action. Folks staked out positions on the far right and left, and points in between. The most irenic and grace-filled comments of the evening came from Rich, the recently-retired chaplain of Craig Hospital, who demonstrated how to take a very strong position (in this case, on the left and opposed to the war) with gentleness and Christian love. I hope to be like that when I grow up.
David Warren of Open Door Ministries shared his own story about how a decade of knowing actual poor people who rely on government support transformed him from a typical conservative opponent of “welfare programs” into the man who got arrested last month in Washington D.C. while protesting funding cuts being considered by the House of Representatives. (I hope I’m not getting you in trouble with any of your old friends, David.)
My favorite part of the evening was watching the young leaders from Issachar stand to state their positions on education policy, stem cell research, and the church’s role in politics. These young folks are serious students of the Bible with a generally evangelical theology. They’re also intimately connected with the poor and marginalized. All of them are people of color (nearly the only in the room). A few are immigrants. Their comments didn’t fit neatly into either conservative or liberal categories, which I found refreshing, though I realize that part of the reason is that they are young and still figuring out what they believe.
I choose to hope that some of these young leaders – who embody elements of both the conservative and liberal impulses in America’s political tradition – will be the kind of healers and bridge-builders that George Bush had hoped (in vain) to be for America, while others become prophetic leaders inviting us to imagine better ways of life as a people.
Comments
Big kudos go to you Jeff for bringing Issachar and for stepping up at the last minute to be on our little panel. The Issachar community "made" the evening and gave it a higher purpose. My thanks to all of them. I was disappointed in the lack of involvement by the suburban and "black" churches I invited, but hopefully our follow-up conversations will draw them in!
Posted by: caleb | February 2, 2006 11:36 AM
Great post, Jeff. I'm confused, though, because the post sounds hopeful and then you get cynical at the end:
"will be the kind of healers and bridge-builders that George Bush had hoped (in vain) to be for America"
Did you mean to sound that way with the words "in vain"?
Posted by: The Senator | February 3, 2006 10:08 AM
Senator, I didn't hear as much cynicism as disappointment, but maybe that's because I know Jeff. Personally, I am disappointed with the Bush presidency (having voted for him the first time), as much for this reason as any--especially when it comes to the domestic front. I realize some of this was out of his control, but the bridge-building promise of the early part of his first campaign simply has not come to pass as far as I can see. In many ways the country is more polarized than when he took office, and I have to say I think W has had some part in that. BUT like Jeff I am relentlessly hopeful... and some of that hope is embodied in the young leaders at Issachar. They are too new to the process to have staked out confining positions in the left-right corners of our political discourse, and I hope they chart some creative paths for us.
Posted by: scott dewey | February 3, 2006 11:12 AM
No cynicism intended at all. I believe that George Bush genuinely hoped to be a healer and uniter. Whether by his fault or events beyond his control, I don't think there is any sense in which we could say that he has gotten his wish.
I certainly have my moments of cynicism. I think that to some degree my Christian worldview contributes, because I never lose sight of the sinfulness of leaders (including myself), even when they are articulating beautiful dreams for the future. But I do remain hopeful, even intensely hopeful, and that hope animates my work mentoring younger leaders.
Posted by: Jeff J | February 3, 2006 12:44 PM
"will be the kind of healers and bridge-builders that George Bush had hoped (in vain) to be for America"
...says to me that you believe that there are no bridge-buildres in the country and yet you just wrote a great entry about people who had a great political discussion in a Christian context. These people seem like bridge builders. That's why that parenthetical seemed so out of place in the entry.
As for seeing the sin in political leaders, that's not at all what God asks of us. We're to pray for them and do our best for them whether we agree with them or not. Leave the judging to God.
Posted by: The Senator | February 5, 2006 10:53 PM
"Pray for our leaders and do our best for them."
Yes. Okay. But where does discernment enter into the process? Aren't we called to discern good and bad? This has nothing to do with judging anyone, Senator. Completely unrelated. I simply argue that we remember that our leaders are, like the rest of us, capable of both good and bad, generosity and selfishness, etc. And I'm pretty confident that both impulses come into play on a regular basis in the way they lead.
On a less "spiritual" note, one of my favorite historians is the conservative British writer Paul Johnson. The big lesson from his majestic book "Modern Times" is that history is shaped by persons, not the inevitable movement of impersonal forces. People, and particularly people vested with huge amounts of power, make decisions that impact the lives of millions. Democracy and justice require us to have no stars in our eyes when we look at our leaders, lest we invest too much trust in them as persons. What that means to me is to remember when I look at leaders, even ones I really like, that these men are capable of doing great harm, and they need to know that we're "onto them."
Our best faith-centered contemporary prophetic voices, MLK and Chavez for example (both heroes of mine, and both deeply flawed persons), were relentlessly hopeful. But they never stopped being realistic about who they were dealing with. They knew that our nation's leaders were a mix of good and bad motives. And so they appealed (eloquently) to the former, while building strategies that took into account the latter.
Posted by: Jeff J | February 6, 2006 10:40 AM
I'm sorry if I misunderstood what you were saying. In my mind, there's not a whole lot of difference between judging someone and discerning that they are bad. If you disagree with his policies, that's discernment. If you think that Bush is a bad person, that's judgement. Maybe I'm getting hung up by the word "sins" because that sounds more like a word related to judgement.
Posted by: The Senator | February 7, 2006 12:25 AM