Andy Rowell

Category: Politics

  • Letter to my kids on Obama’s Inauguration Day

    Dear Ryan (3) and Jacob (1),

    Barack Obama became president at noon today.  In some ways, today was not a special day.  As Christians, we affirm that there is only one king—the Lord Almighty and his kingdom is coming.  He is the king-elect and one day all will acknowledge that he is king.  Nothing today changed that and that is the breaking news.

    for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live. (1 Cor 8:6).

    But our citizenship is in heaven. And we eagerly await a Savior from there, the Lord Jesus Christ (Phil 3:20)

    But I also want to tell you something that you cannot yet understand—that I am happy today because what I perceive to be a good man—and an African-American man became president. 

    I wrote Obama a letter two years ago in January 2007—not because I supported him but because I saw potential in him.  By December 2007—before any primaries—I thought he would win.  I was not impressed by any of the other candidates.  I got Obama’s book Audacity of Hope and read it over Christmas from the library—shocked no one had it checked out already.  I told the library worker that I wanted to find out more about our next president—she gave me a funny look.  Obama won the Iowa primary January 3, 2008.  I blogged about his book January 17 when very little had been written about his faith.  I made the rather banal point that he was not an evangelical but was a pretty smart guy and a sincere Christian.  The main criticism then of Obama from evangelicals, and still today, is his stance on abortion.  We’ll see what he does on that issue—wildly different predictions still exist about what he will do.  Obama has some other flaws as well—virtually all of which he acknowledges—some unfortunate associations, some character blemishes, and the obvious one for all presidential candidates—ambition.  Furthermore, it is appropriate for all citizens of the USA—no actually, the world—to be afraid of a new president.  He has so much power and we only have an inkling of the decisions he will make.  He has the potential to do serious damage to the country and the world—people who do not trust him are understandably afraid.  We will know soon enough whether the hopeful or the skeptical were more perceptive. 

    But beyond those disclaimers, I wanted to tell you something else.  I wanted you to know that I am hopeful because I see in Obama some Christian characteristics.  I watched the campaign closely and I was impressed by his integrity and his ideals.  He seemed honest when others weren’t.  He did not tear people down.  He did his research.  He listened.  He seemed conscious of the poor and those in poor countries.  He resisted spouting ideology.  He resisted making promises he couldn’t deliver. 

    I also wanted to tell you that I am joyful because part of the breakthrough symbolized in the first African-American president is due to the courageous Christian behavior of some who have gone before.  I hope that you will read enough someday to know about Abraham Lincoln, Frederick Douglas, Jackie Robinson, Thurgood Marshall, and Martin Luther King, Jr.  Martin Luther King, Jr. Day was yesterday and Obama’s inauguration was today.  If Obama ends up being a terrible president, much of this will come to naught; but I want you to know that today many people rejoiced—not necessarily because they have much hope for Obama—though many are hopeful—but rather people rejoiced because black people have experienced so much grief and heartache in our nation’s history.  Today’s inauguration was one small gesture (and I mean that—small) by which we as a country tell our African-American brothers and sisters, that we—our ancestors, our people, whites—we were wrong.  Not only were black slaves human beings equal to ourselves, not only should people of any color be able to vote, but we as a country—at least a majority of voters—have elected an African-American person to lead our country.  We were wrong.  We were wrong.  We were wrong. 

    I know why I have felt the need to write this letter.  I have read this year the sermons of Peter Storey who pastored in Johannesburg, South Africa from 1976 to 1997.  I am reading Dietrich Bonhoeffer and Karl Barth who resisted Nazism in Germany.  I am also reading about how some intellectuals were apologists for the Nazi regime in Claudia Koonz’s The Nazi Conscience. 

    But I was most struck by Martin Luther King’s Letter from a Birmingham Jail.  It is a letter to eight pastors who criticized him. The pastors urged blacks to pursue peace by conventional measures “not in the streets.”  History tells us that they were the short-sighted ones.  They chose sides poorly.  They thought that because the protests weren’t perfect, protesting was wrong.  The pastors were wrong.  King was right.    

    The right side of history on the night of Obama’s inauguration seems to me to be: hoping and supporting Obama in being the kind of leader God would want him to be; and to be rejoicing that in one small way America has proclaimed that we were and are wrong when we judge people by the color of their skin.  As I said above, as Christians, we do not trust leaders for the destiny of our country.  But when we see people trying to follow Jesus and the results of those who have tried to follow Jesus, we hope and rejoice.

    My particular vocation is bound up with serving the church.  I want to lead the church to be an alternative community that demonstrates God’s inbreaking reign.  This is my primary way of being on the right side of history.  But when we notice other rays of the light of God’s kingdom breaking in from what seems to be outside the church, these we should also affirm. 

    If twenty years from now, we can see that today was a breakthrough for the fortunes of African-Americans and for a more humble, compassionate America, I want to declare that I was on that side of history. 

    Your dad.

    10:30 pm

    Tuesday, January 20, 2009

  • John Howard Yoder on Voting

    Tim Kumfer at The Other Journal notes it is worth voting–quoting John Howard Yoder, "It is one way, one of the weaker and vaguer ways, to speak truth to power."  In other words, it is something but there is so much more we should be doing if we want to influence the world. 

    See Tim's good article:

    Between Sojourners and the Simple Way? Rethinking Radical, Evangelical Politics in ’08 with John Howard Yoder
    by Tim Kumfer
    The Other Journal
    October 14, 2008

  • Impotent or missional? Is Bush right that the Chinese need not fear religion?

    Headline: Don't fear religion, Bush tells China

    Aug 9, 2008

    "Laura and I just had the great joy and privilege of worshipping here in Beijing," Bush said. "You know, it just goes to show that God is universal and God is love, and no state, man or woman should fear the influence of loving religion."

    We could respond to Bush's comments by saying, "But religion (like Christianity) should be subversive!  It should undermine nationalistic values.  It should empower the vulnerable.  It should be a conscience to the state.  A state should fear it."

    But before we are too hard on Bush, some people think that the book of Acts was written partially in the hope that the Roman Empire would recognize Christianity was harmless with regard to the state.  The book of Acts depicts Peter and Paul as innocent healers and reasonable people who had unreasonable detractors.  Luke implies that the church of Jesus was a law-abiding religious community–that the Roman state had nothing to fear.  As it turned out, the Roman Empire did not regard Christianity as innocuous for long–persecuting it and then later submitting to it.

    One of my professors at Duke, sociologist Mark Chaves argues that indeed congregations in the U.S. are not all that "scary" because they are not very influential with regard to political and social issues.  Bush is right, China has little to fear if congregations are as tepid there as they are here!  Chaves bases his comments on the largest congregational survey ever conducted in the USA.  Chaves concludes, "If we ask what congregations do, the answer is that they mainly traffic in ritual, knowledge, and beauty through the cultural activities of worship, education, and the arts; they do not mainly pursue charity or justice through social services or politics"
    Mark Chaves, Congregations in America (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2004), 14.

    Chinese government leaders worry about Christians like Alexander Solzhenitsyn and William Wilberforce who helped achieve great social changes.  I remember reading Charles Colson's The Body in college which anecdotally describes how Christians had a significant influence in bringing down communism in Eastern Europe.  

    John Howard Yoder argues throughout his writings that a congregation's internal practices should inherently have social impact.  Christianity need not jettison its Christian practices to be missionally impactful.  Even baptism and communion “are not ‘religious’ or ‘ritual’ activities, they are by nature ‘lay’ or ‘public’ phenomena” (Yoder, “Sacrament as Social Process: Christ the Transformer of Culture,” The Royal Priesthood, 370). 

    My conclusion is not a profound one.  Chaves and Yoder are both right.  As Chaves's data shows, congregations too often have very little social and political impact.  But Yoder is right that congregations have potential to have great social and political impact if they would only recover their missional focus.

    Yoder writes,
    "Pietism later sought to fill this gap by creating circles of believers.  Yet, without the dimension of outward mission, this type of gathering around common pious experiences is immediately threatened with stagnation and becomes little more than communal introspection." (Yoder, “A People in the World,” The Royal Priesthood, 78).

    I recently read Luther Seminary professor Pat Keifert's book about the way he helps congregations think through their missional effectiveness. His church consulting method is called, Partnership for Missional Church (PMC).  He urges congregations to analyze their sense of mission together, rather than merely have leaders implement a new small group structure or contemporary worship service without this step.

    “Absent that shared sense of mission—a deep cultural reality—strategic plans, no matter how well gathered and formed, fail to gain the commitment of energy, time and resources for transforming mission.”
    We Are Here Now: A New Missional Era, 50.


    Other comments:

    See also Keifert's colleague at Luther Seminary Van Gelder's book:

    The Missional Church in Context: Helping Congregations Develop Contextual Ministry (Missional Church Series) by Craig Van Gelder (Paperback – Oct 26, 2007)