~~~~~

I know I’ve been a bit off grid lately—life has been awfully busy, mostly for wonderful and good reasons (a link to one of them below!).

But publicly quiet though I may have been, privately or in smaller corners of my little world, I’ve been actively musing and in conversations about many a thing related to the present moment within the ELCA.

As I watch the stakes of the 2024 election grow higher and higher, coinciding with a rise in Christian nationalism (and the rise of Christian nationalists, like our new Speaker of the House, as detailed here and here and here), anti-semitism, hate against the 2SLGBTQIA community, climate crises, and the reduction of women’s rights and safety…well, public theologian that I am, it’s in my vocational bones to look at the role, state, and trajectory of the ELCA.

In a word, I have thoughts.

Happily, if you’re a Lutheran, October is the season of Theses, and tomorrow, Reformation Day, is when we go positively bananas about them.

I don’t have 95 of them laying around, but I do have 28, and I’d like to throw them out for your consideration.

Theses 14 and 22-24 are the crux, so to speak, of the matter, and I hope to return to them in another blog (especially 24).

So.

With that, and with some gulps, I offer:

28 Hot Takes About The State of the ELCA

1. Despite the Lutheran well-deserved fixation on the forgiveness of sins (and with all due respect to Luther and his 95 Theses, especially today), the gospel is not, actually, that our sins are forgiven.

2. The gospel is that Jesus is risen.

3. To say otherwise reduces the good news of the gospel to one consequence—forgiveness—and therefore makes its message relevant only to sinners.

4. While, yes, we are all sinners, it turns out that life is messier, more multi-layered, and far more nuanced than just that singular claim.

5. Left at forgiveness, those who are sinned upon, or those who grieve, or those who linger in fear, or who are lonely, or struggle, or suffer under systemic evils, and (all too often overlooked) even creation tormented by human harm; all of these and more are untouched by a gospel that is only about the forgiveness of sins.

6. Instead, the risen Jesus—the gospel, that is—frees us to see death in all its forms, and then (to quote Luther from his less-sexy-than-the-95-Theses-but-way-key Heidelberg Disputation) to “call a thing what it is,” namely to renounce that which is not of God, to tend to those who mourn or suffer, and, in Jesus’ name, usher in comfort, hope, justice, an announcement of grace and something new.

7. Precisely, I believe, because Lutherans have been historically focused on justification rather than justification and justice, the ELCA is now struggling and, I believe, dying.

8. Our focus on forgiveness rather than a broader notion of the gospel both sustains and sanctions the structure of the ELCA, a structure undergirded by white supremacy.

9. We who benefit from white supremacy like forgiveness waaaayyy more than we like repentance.

10. In recent years, we have seen increased irritation and anger from many ELCA members, people who are dismayed by the renewed attention to justice raised by rostered leaders. Such a focus has no place in the pulpit, they say, because they come to church to hear that Jesus loves them and that they are forgiven.

11. We would be wrong to dismiss their anger or diss them, because in all fairness, generations of Lutherans have come to church to hear that we are justified, period. There’s been little to no emphasis on justice. The reasons for that are many, but among them:

a. Luther’s context of rebuking indulgences, hierarchy, and any work as a way to salvation still shape our identity even 500+ years later;

b. Righteous justice work has been misidentified as works righteousness.

c. Allergic to anything that smacks of works, and content with a social, political, and religious system which has largely benefitted people with similar privilege, it’s—consciously or not—to the benefit of most Lutherans to be quite fine with focusing on forgiveness.

d. (To be abundantly clear, forgiveness is a Word, has a Word, and offers good news that needs to be heard!).

12. For these reasons, among others, many ELCA members are understandably caught off guard by hearing something not only new, but often threatening to their way of being and their self-understanding, and many are therefore angry.

13. Meanwhile, ELCA rostered leaders are increasingly restless, stressed, and leaving ministry, because they find themselves enmeshed in a system that calls them to leadership in the service of Jesus, but which structurally and systematically undermines their call to do exactly that. (It really is a crisis)

14. Under our present system, because rostered leaders are aware of congregational and missional dependence on rich supporters—many/most of whom have reason to be offended and off-put by Scripture’s relentless proclamation against power, privilege, wealth, and economic justice—rostered leaders have complicated and conflicted motivations not to preach and teach justice along with justification.

15. Despite promises yoked to both baptism and ordination, there are real reasons—not at all base, but very real—for rostered leaders to fear severe and harmful financial and conflictual repercussions were they to steward their broader vocational and baptized identities.

16. These very same vocational and baptized identities, more fully embraced, could, in real time, affect the viability and (superficial, anyway) peace of their congregation(s). This truth undermines the communally understood commitment of rostered leaders to build up the congregations or contexts to which they are called. Think church mortgages, heat, electricity, staff salaries, choral music, Sunday School materials, and missions beyond the congregation: all and more are put in jeopardy if conflict rises and offerings drop.

17. Too, rostered leaders know that to preach the social and political implications of a gospel far broader than the traditionally limited Lutheran equation of gospel with forgiveness will engage personal risks, risks like:

a. having to leave their call (which could affect not only their own life but also the lives of related loved ones);
b. facing no guarantee of another call in the vicinity or at all;
c. and receiving little to no assured denominational financial support for the consequences of their faithfulness.

18. These competing claims are taking immeasurable tolls on the mental, emotional, vocational, and spiritual well-being of rostered leaders.

19. We Lutherans are swell at swirling the concepts of saint and sinner, the already and the not yet, the both/and of life. But for some reason or another, we remain quite comfortable with making strict binaries out of law and gospel, and (very much relatedly) the prophetic and the pastoral.

20. However, (as but one biblical example) Mary’s song—which announced the advent of Jesus, the one who grounds our gospel—announced law and gospel right along with the prophetic and pastoral truths that wealth and privilege oppress the rich as much as they do the poor.

21. The same can be said of white supremacy, which (albeit in different ways) harms white people as well as those who are not. Likewise, patriarchy suffocates men as it does women. And so forth.

22. But somebody needs to tell them. That rostered leaders hesitate doing so is not only a sign that our structure is beholden to the wealthy, the white, and the patriarchy, and that our system holds captives servants who individually rail against the same, but it also signals that en masse we don’t understand or trust our own theology which (ostensibly) proudly transcends other binaries.

23. When we avoid preaching and teaching boldly against the various interests of the privileged, powerful, and rich—callings in keeping with Scripture’s consistent and overwhelming message against economic inequality and other injustices—we participate in the oppression of the poor and marginalized.

24. Also, by insulating the privileged from the clarion and chronic Scriptural calls for solidarity with the Least of These and against injustice, we also oppress and dehumanize the wealthy by transforming them into mere objects and tools for our own institutional needs.

25. The painful binds described here illustrate that the structure of the ELCA reflects and fosters an institutionalized theology of glory (e.g., the size and financial resources of a congregation, and the overt lack of conflict, are signs that God is at work) rather than a theology of the cross (if we pick up our cross and follow Jesus, we -actually- run the real risk/probability of—at least initially—having fewer people, way way way less income, and uncomfortable conversations).

26. No amount of tinkering with this system will transform its love of glory into love of the cross. It needs to be dismantled and begun anew. And we need to look to womanist, black, mujarista, liberation, indigenous, 2SLGBTQIA, and Dalit theologies, not just for inspiration but for transformation.

27. The ELCA dedication to a theology of glory, which is a theology of white supremacy, will be its undoing.

28. Paradoxically, a theology of the cross says that this undoing might be exactly a sign that God is at work, bringing into being something as of yet unimagined, and something more consistent with and worthy of our Lutheran theology, a theology which, in a word, rocks.

~~~~~

We sit on the eve of Reformation Sunday.

It’s a high feast day to Lutherans, that’s for sure.

We say, of course, that Luther didn’t start out to begin a new church.  He wanted to reform the one already there.

True though that is, I think that saying that makes us feel less bad for all of the chaos that ensued ;-).

But still, at the end of the day, in fact, Luther…well, he pretty much started a new church.

Again, the word ‘catholic’ means ‘whole,’ or ‘universal,’ which, in a general-sweep sort of way, is why pre-Luther there was the Catholic Church, and post-Luther there was the Roman Catholic Church, annnnnnd the Lutherans, annnnnd later every other denomination or clusters of belief we have, which are all part of the catholic Church.

The ELCA is not The Church.

But it is a church.

And it might be that a reformation, as in a Systems Tweak with a capital T, isn’t enough.

It could be that this Reformation Day, we within the ELCA would benefit by considering the possibility that our present structure undermines the work of the Church.

Fortunately, we are Lutherans, and we know that church structure isn’t salvatory—for that matter, neither is church.

But as the Church, we believe that the gospel, namely the good news that Jesus is risen, is.

And we believe that the import of that salvatory news isn’t just—or even mostly, and some would say at all—about what happens after you die.

It has everything to do with what happens when we live, and how we live. 

That’s because the gospel is that death doesn’t win, not in any single form, even death that manifests in the form of a system that centers the rich, marginalizes the oppressed, and in so doing, oppresses even the wealthy too.

Our theology is, we are, better than that, and there’s no better opportunity for Lutherans to consider that possibility than on Reformation Day 2023.

~~~~~

(And to the good news, and more to this on another later post: David and I have begun a business on Karl’s behalf. Karl, as many/most of you know, suffered a traumatic brain injury almost 20 years ago.  We are determined to honor in every possible way Karl’s joy, fortitude, and love of service and people, including by way of discovering a vocation that provides meaning and purpose.  To that end, we’ve begun Karl’s Wheelhouse, which you can find on FB, and also online under Two Lugs and A Nut Workshop. I invite you to check it out! *insert proud mama emoji*)

(Another plug that might be shameless but is certainly on point: if you want to take a deeper dive into my thoughts on the above, check out my book I Can Do No Other: The Church’s Here I Stand Moment, published by Fortress Press).

These good and faithful proclaimers were hoping I could perhaps offer a bit of an overview of the themes of this year’s Epiphany texts, and so I gave it a decent whirl; they’ll be the judge of whether the whirl was worthy!

I love Epiphany, as an aside, though I fear that it’s the season that, when we breezily rattle off the liturgical year, we say, “and…and…wait…there’s one more…give me a sec….”

Advent and Christmas we get, and Lent is easy.

It’s possible that we might overlook Easter as an actual season rather than just a Feast Day, but no one forgets Pentecost: its stretch is interminable.  I once knew a pastor who, at the tail end of the season, would give up the count and just date his bulletins with “The Umpteenth Sunday after Pentecost!”

But Epiphany…were it a person, I’d fret that it might have a complex.

It’s a bit ironic, because Epiphany is the season of God-Made-Knowings, of God Made Manifest, of catching sightings of God’s intention for and Word to the world.

Still, when we do think about Epiphany, we tend to think about miracles (as in our text tomorrow, the changing of the water into wine…though, not a minor quibble, the Greek does not call it a miracle but rather a sign of the reign of God, but that’s for another blog…) or undeniable bursts of God’s radiating light, as on Transfiguration Sunday.

But as I prepped for this group, the texts for next Sunday and the Sunday following (the Third and Fourth Sundays after the Epiphany, January 23rd and 30th, respectively) were the ones that particularly caught my attention.

The passages run from Luke 4:14-21, and then (interestingly, picking up again with the exact last verse of the previous week, but more on that in a moment) Luke 4:21-30.

Luke 4:14-21 tells us of Jesus, the rock star come home.  People were fanning and fawning all over the guy upon his return to Nazareth, and so followed him to his first stop, his favorite haunt: the Synagogue.

There, he was given a scroll from which to read.

Jesus’ eyes fell upon these words from Isaiah: “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to bring good news to the poor.  He has sent me to proclaim release to the captives and recovery of sight to the blind, to let the oppressed go free, to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor.”

All 21st century influencers should take note and pointers from what Jesus did next.

The guy rolled up the scroll, Luke tells us, and he handed it away, and he sat down.

He. Sat. Down.

And, says Luke, “The eyes of all in the synagogue were fixed on him.”

Of course they were.

Jesus had them exactly where he wanted them and he knew it.

Over two thousand years later, our eyes are still fixed on him.

But Jesus wasn’t done.

“Today,” he announced, “this scripture has been fulfilled in your hearing.”

Mic. Drop.

In him, Jesus said, the expectations that the people of Israel had held all of these years, the words of Isaiah’s that they had treasured in hope, namely that the poor would receive good news, the enslaved would be released, the blind would be healed, and the oppressed would be free, were fulfilled and went down.

And that’s where the text ends.

With that line.

“Today this scripture has been fulfilled in your hearing.”

That’s all we’re given as an epiphanic moment.

Jesus is the one for whom we’ve been waiting, and Jesus brings equity, recovery, and freedom.

This sounds awesome, right?

Who doesn’t want that?

Well, our next week’s text tells us exactly who.

~~~~~

So the next week, namely the Fourth Sunday of Epiphany (January 30th), our Gospel reading begins with this same verse and these same words!

“Today this scripture has been fulfilled in your hearing.”

In a moment of wisdom, the creators of the Revised Common Lectionary (RCL) made an overt point of linking the previous week’s text with this one. (Well done RCL!)

So, Luke goes out of his way to note that initially, “all spoke well of him.”

Heck.

Of course they did.

Christians, all of us, speak well of Jesus.

And so we should, right? After all, we say we follow him, and so speaking well of Jesus seems to follow too.

But then the well-speaking ceased.

Why?

Jesus began to tell of the consequences of this text from Isaiah, and the consequences for those who opt to throw their lot in with Jesus, the fulfiller of these words, the one over whom the crowd had just ooh-ed and ahh-ed while nudging each other saying, “I knew him when he was running around in swaddling cloths just around his bum!”

When they listend, really listened, this is what they heard:

The ‘outsider’ widow rather than the Hebrew insiders was visited by Elijah.

Moreover, Elisha didn’t heal a Jew, but rather a Syrian.

A Syrian!

And in a flash, dots were connected.

Jesus has no time for privilege.

Jesus rejects exclusion.

Jesus is beyond over the presence of hunger, unhealed disease, or loneliness.

Jesus would like a word with those—especially those who purport to be God-fearers—who foster or remain silent in the face of any of it.

Jesus has an eye turned toward systems which uphold inequity, and is here to take. them. down.

So.

From that point on, it pretty much went as you’d expect, especially these days:

“When they heard this, all in the synagogue were filled with rage.  They got up, drove him out of the town, and led him to the brow of the hill on which their town was built, so that they might hurl him off the cliff.”

No, keep in mind, right, that these were the very same people who had sat in rapt attention of Jesus’ words, believing him to be a righteous and holy man.

They leaned in to hear him speak the Word of God.

They said they wanted a revelation.

Yes they did.

But what they, namely the people who have access to money, to health, to privilege, to power—and therefore what a good lot of we—instead got was a revelation of a revolution.

See, who chased Jesus out of town and toward that cliff?

Everyone who was going to distinctly not benefit from his revelation, that’s who.

These (we) are the people who refused to hear or see God Made Manifest because to hear, see, and act on this God means that they (we) have to open up hands to release power, open up hearts to welcome the stranger, open up our minds to a new way, to new systems, and to an entirely new way of being that solely reflects the reign of God.

It’s not to be missed that these are pretty much a decent chunk of people who sit in the pews of most mainstream churches, or have crafted how denominations are structured, or who make up the rules and regulations of our nation.

When God’s revelation, it seems, is of a revolution, we tend to run representatives and representations of Jesus right on out of wherever he and we are.

~~~~~

So as I sat with these texts, and how his revelation—pronounced before people who asked him for it—played out, a couple of distinct but related thoughts occurred to me.

1) Although we think of Epiphany as a gentle season of illumination, of the presence of God appearing in our midst, of our lives being brightened by God’s Word, these texts from Luke suggest that we might not actually, when you get right down to it, want or welcome God’s revelation.

In fact, we’ve got a pretty good track record of doing everything we can to squelch it, ignore it, or kill it.

This Epiphany season, then, might be an opportunity to ask whether we really want an epiphany, like we pietistically say we do, or if, when Jesus enters our community, our room, our lives, we only want him speaking as long as his revelations are just manifestations of affirmations of how things are streaming along just fine, thank you.

2) It is possible that, despite the assumptions that the Epiphany of God comes with sweetness and light, an Epiphany of God might come in the form of us crumpled up in tears huddled at the end of a couch realizing we can’t do x, y, or z anymore; it might reveal itself in a fit of anger as we see for the first time an injustice; it might appear in the form of the dissolution of a relationship, a work relationship, an institution’s structure; it might occur in Sidon, in Syria, and in the secular streets (as my friend and former professor Dr. Don Luck, I believe it was, said, “Women’s ordination didn’t finally come about in the ‘70s because a bunch of male theologians gathered in a closed room to swill bourbon while they discussed the biblical and theologian reasons for ordaining women—though there are plenty of those. No, women were ordained because bras were being burned in the streets!”

Perhaps, that is, when we see the limits of structures we’ve known and loved, when we see our own limits, when we realize that whatever is burdening our spirits or others’ well-being is simply neither sustainable nor just, that’s not when we are being abandoned by God.

It’s when we are seeing God.

You say you want a revelation?

Get ready for a revolution.

He did, however, love to talk about the laity, whom, he believed, by virtue of their being baptized, were also therefore priests.

As far as Luther saw, and all who consequentially call ourselves Lutherans, all Christians have equal access and standing before God, regardless of whether they are called and ordained to service specifically in the church.

In Luther’s thought, there was no room or welcome for any hierarchy of holiness or blessedness or sanctify-edness, common teachings in both his day and ours, all of which suggest that some people are some how closer to God than others.

In fact, it’s one of the reasons that Luther was behind pulling the altar out away from the wall. The resurrection means that the altar is no longer a place of sacrifice for anything but praise.

So now it’s a table, around which all are invited to sit.

If you get closer to it and the wall behind you are not therefore getting closer to God.

Nope.

All are justified, said Luther, all are equal, all are loved, all are welcome before God, no matter where you sit, where you stand, what you’ve done, or what you do.

~~~~~

Now, to be clear, Luther wasn’t knocking either the expertise or the calling of the priests, or, as we call them now, pastors, as well as rostered leaders.

Luther wasn’t like those of our day who disdain experts in any given field (but somehow see no problem with conveniently appointing themselves as self-declared experts in their stead).

In fact, Luther argued that those in the pews are called to respect the office and role of those called to preach and teach the Word of God and administer the sacraments. Such people have been trained as resident rabbis, in essence, and have some things to teach and encourage that others are called to learn and absorb.

But likewise, Luther made a point of teaching that that street goeth both ways. “Every occupation has its own honor before God as well as its own requirements and duties…All the estates and works of God…are to be praised as highly as they can be, and none despised in favor of another” (LW 46:246).

What Luther was teaching here, of course, was radical for his day: those who are not ordained have the same authority and power of the Gospel within them as do those trained to be priests, and, in fact, duty to serve one another as priests of God.

Relatedly, in Lutheran liturgy, “assisting ministers” are not assisting the pastor in leading their worship, but rather, as lay people, assisting ministers assist the laity in offering their worship.

But here’s the thing that is on my mind this Reformation Weekend:

Right now, many of those called to be rostered leaders very much need those who are called to be laity to, well, to come to their assistance, actually.

Why?

So that these rostered leaders can live out their vocation, and stay well doing so, and even just plain stay.

I do believe that it’s a real possibility that the laity might very well have an additional call in these days, which is to give their rostered leaders some love and care in the form of active, vocal, tender, real support and help.

As in Big Time.

~~~~~

Here’s the situation in a nutshell.

Pastors have been called by the church at large and by congregations specifically to preach and teach and administer the sacraments.

It sounds like a great gig.

What could be tough about telling people about God’s love and baptizing babies and comforting people in their losses and getting ample cookies and coffee to boot?

But people, it’s really, really hard.

And these last few years, for many upon many, it’s been not just hard but excruciating, depleting, overwhelming, and mentally, emotionally, and even spiritually breaking.

A vast number of your church leaders are absolutely beyond spent.

If they haven’t already, many are contemplating leaving not just their immediate calls but their Call writ large, if not considering up and leaving the Church entirely.

I’m not making it up: we have a crisis on our hands, and rostered leaders desperately need lay ministers to assist them to simply hang in there another day.

~~~~~

Here’s the general scoop:

Rostered leaders understand their call not to be that they are called to serve their congregations, but to serve the gospel in their congregations.

It’s a whole different thing, you see, if you do the latter instead of the former.

If rostered leaders serve their congregations, then they become beholden to what the congregation says should happen: they become, in essence, an employee of the congregation and not a servant of Christ.

But if they serve the gospel, well…look what happened to Jesus and you get an idea of what can, and often times does, go down.

So I think any reasonable person can see why, for some time—as in decades, if not centuries—rostered leaders have opted to serve congregations instead.

But let me say at the top of my lungs: these rostered leaders are not base.

They are savvy and smart and they love their congregations and their families and they know the cost of following Jesus is really, really high, and they went into this calling even so.

These leaders get to know their particular place and their particular people and their collective stories and dreams, and rostered leaders overwhelmingly do this with sincerity and authenticity and deep love.

It’s an honorable, noble thing.

But there’s this other piece, right, this bit that generally speaking, rostered leaders have not wanted to rock the boat so very much, because it gets messy fast.

So we’ve opted to keep the boat stable (though arguably not moving it much either, and statistics tell us that more and more people are up and getting out of the boat) via the blessing of the Lutheran tradition which pretty much has summed up the gospel in a faithfully Lutheran, relatively easy thing to preach and hear: your sins are forgiven.

Who doesn’t want to hear that?

Everyone wants to hear that.

No one gets mad at that—unless, I suppose, you realize that everyone from your bum of a neighbor to someone who has truly harmed you to people who facilitate systems which generate oppression also get forgiveness.

That rankles.

But we can get through that, really.

That’s fairly easy.

The tough stuff is the stuff that has to do with all the other things Jesus was about: feeding everyone, healing everyone, welcoming everyone, clothing everyone, visiting everyone, teaching everyone, and so on and so forth.

And that he said follow me.

That super duper rankles, especially because these same sorts of pieces are the headline news pieces of our culture and politics of the day, and so it’s easier and safer to just stick with Jesus loves you no matter what.

You’re not lying. It’s true.

It’s just not the whole kit and kaboodle, and silence about that truth has been and is harmful to the Church and to those who need that word to be spoken and heard.

~~~~~

For reasons that are, for lack of a better word (though the irony isn’t lost on me) justified, rostered leaders haven’t preached this piece with wild abandon, this truth that the gospel also means that, no longer afraid of death, and assured that no matter what we and all are saved by grace, we are freed to serve Jesus’ agenda rather than our own.

And that means that Christians are called to act always always always always on behalf of the Least of These, which frees the least from their least-ness and, as it turns out, the greatest from their greatness.

How the gospel washes out for the greatest is the kicker, of course.

Because of that, we haven’t done a great job so very much in teaching that that sort of message isn’t only spiritual, only theoretical, but it affects everything we do and say and are, just as it did Jesus, and just as it did Jesus’ followers, and just as it did those in the early Church.

Our faith claims all of all of us.

So, frankly, who can blame rostered leaders for keeping this sort of news on the DL?

Even if you take out the obvious and universal truth that conflict is not so very often on the Fun Scale, so let’s stay away from that then, there are real risks in preaching the implications of the Gospel.

People, especially wealthy people, will stop coming.

They will stop giving.

They will leave.

And when they do, congregations can’t cover a mortgage.

Can’t cover lights.

Can’t cover heat.

Can’t cover Sunday school supplies.

Can’t cover paying the youth director, the secretary, the custodian, and can’t cover the pastoral staff.

And that means that the youth director, the secretary, the custodian, and the pastoral staff can’t cover their own mortgages, lights, heat, or school supplies.

They also can’t cover the educational loans that they took out to get them in this prophetic pickle to begin with.

And the church also can’t cover the needs of the Least of These, like food shelves, homeless shelters, and support for the needy near and far which tithes and people bring into being.

That’s not even mentioning the annual reports that need to be turned in which request to know how many people are in the pews and how many offerings have been taken in—both relevant metrics if you are serving a congregation, but neither relevant metrics if you are serving the gospel.

Nor is it even mentioning the stresses and strains of Covid, which have pitted rostered leaders between their call to preserve life and also to hold worship, as well as pitting them between those who are pro-masks, pro-vaccines, and pro-virtual worship until this horrid Covid-thing is over, against those who are anti-mask, anti-vaccine, and anti-anything that isn’t in person and as it always was.

And let’s put back in that conflict, some of it quite hostile, even the mundane stuff, not to mention the rising anger these days that the pastor is getting too political…to which the preacher sighs, and even cries, and says for the countless time, “It’s biblical. Take it up with Jesus that they are political biblical texts.  I’m simply doing what you called me to do. I’m preaching the texts. And I’m inviting you to live into your baptismal promises to follow Jesus, which is also what you called me to do.”

To make it all the more intense, we are sitting in a political, cultural, social, economic storm like no other, and within a Church which—across denominations—was already declining even before Trump and Covid hit the early 21st Century scene.

It’s a horrible, horrible bind in which these rostered leaders, called by the Church, are stuck.

They are pitted between preaching the gospel and thereby sabotaging the church and their call, or preaching that everything is awesome and sabotaging the gospel and their integrity.

Here’s the wrenching piece of it: every single person who holds any of the above convictions, every single one of these people, is a member of any given congregation.

So how do you serve the congregation when it is split?

You don’t.

You serve the gospel instead of the congregation.

That’s the right answer, of course.

As if that’s easy.

Just ask Jesus how slick that works.

~~~~~

Many laity, especially conservative laity, have felt in recent years as if they have been hoodwinked, played, duped, double-crossed, bait-and-switched, and/or betrayed by the Church.

The Church, they think, has done one of two things:

a) Strayed from what it has been, an oasis of kindness where we hear that Jesus loves you and that we are forgiven;

b) Misrepresented itself all along, now maintaining that the gospel has always been about social justice and advocacy as much as justification.

To be honest, I think their anger is on point and right.

I think that the Church hasn’t been forthright about what it is called to be and what rostered leaders are called to do.

No wonder that so many people are rankled with their church, their congregation, and their rostered leaders.

For all the above reasons and more, we were supposed to tell them and, on balance, for all the above reasons and more, we didn’t.

No wonder people are ticked.

And no wonder rostered leaders are so very, very tired.

They’re doing their work and the work that should have been done for generations before them.

~~~~~

So here are but three reasons why many rostered leaders really could use the assistance of the laity.

1) They are stuck, as in Catch-22-ain’t-got-nothin’-on-their-daily-reality stuck, between the weights of the expectations of the congregation and the weights of the calling of the gospel.

They are legit afraid about the consequences for their congregations, and for themselves, and for their families, if they do what they believe they were called to do.

2) They know, deeply know, of scriptural and more recent mentors of the faith, like Bonhoeffer, and Kaj Munk,and MLK, and Seminex students and faculty, and people who have spoken up on behalf of the ordination of women, and courageous leaders in the GLBTQIA community, all who have with great risk to themselves and their families and their congregations said “Here I stand, I can do no other. May God help me.”

And they can’t do the same.

And they feel horrible about it, as in deep in their soul despondent about it.

3) They are coursing with cortisol, and have no time or way to expunge their bodies of the stress.

Too much cortisol, it is no lie, causes all sorts of threats to mental health, physical health, and it can even shorten one’s life.

Rostered leaders are stretched beyond healthy limits, and they have few if any ways to get healthy, because they are called to serve in a congregational call which, paradoxically and painfully, won’t easily let them live out their call.

So here are but three ways that the priesthood of all believers could really minister to the rostered leaders.

1) If you are supportive of your called leaders, and moreover want to hear them preach and teach the implications of the gospel all the more fervently, then please, tell them.

Make an appointment.

If you know of others in your congregation who feel as do you, connect with them and together saturate your rostered leader with private and public support.

Let them and let others in your congregation know that you are grateful for their vision, their courage, and their faithfulness to gospel news and claims.

2) Up your support, in every way: financial, moral, spiritual, tangible, and in presence.

Even, and this is a big Woah Nellie for many Lutherans, even applaud during or after a sermon if you hear something especially gospel bold.

Seriously, we have come to this people.

Lutherans applauding in worship.

It’s that bad.

3) Give your rostered leaders more vacation time, continuing ed time and money, make them meals, gift them with cards to coffee and, for that matter, liquor stores.

Not making it up.

4) Ask them how they are, not as in the perfunctory after worship sort of way, but really.

Listen to them.

Receive what they say.

Perhaps people reading this could add more suggestions in the comments, but I’m calling it a wrap now, because even I can see that the blog has already gotten too long.

But the upshot is this:

Reformation Day reminds us of the good news that we are justified.

Alas, only in recent years have we been prompted to recall that that good news also means that we are freed to be sent out to advocate for and to enact justice.

Privileged people, which, to be honest, is what most of the ELCA membership is, like hearing about justification way more than justice.

But right now, I believe that the priesthood of all believers is called to announce to their rostered leaders, loudly, publicly, unabashedly, that they are called to preach both.

Justification and justice.

And while you’re at it, please let your rostered leaders know that you have their baptized, called, sent, and justified backs.

Christians (Lutherans perhaps especially) like to talk all the time about forgiveness.

We love love love forgiveness.

And as an extra bonus, we can even talk about forgiveness in polite company.

But unless we’re reading those super uncomfortable Advent texts featuring John the Baptist (that wild-haired, wild-eyed, wild-mannered guy in our lectionary about whom we’re always a bit embarrassed, looking at each other with wide eyes whenever Sundays in December come around, knowing that this strange man got in our scriptural tradition somehow, and so apparently the right thing to do is to figure out how to welcome him into our lecterns, even though we all know we’re not so sure we’d even let him into our pews, and definitely not our pulpits), this man who wields the word ‘repentance’ all the time (much to our chagrin), we have (in stark contrast to ‘forgiveness’) gotten away for far too long without talking about repentance so very much at all.

But this is good, we think.

To tell someone to repent, you see, is awkward.

It’s impolite.

It’s even insulting.

It’s definitely conflictual.

And Christians aren’t supposed to make people feel awkward, and we are not about being impolite, and we shouldn’t insult, and of course we ought not cause conflict in the name of Christ, no matter what this John the Baptist said and did.

But on this tragic, grief-ridden day of the Emanuel Nine, a day that is bundled into other days that have spilled into weeks where our nation has begun to name and claim our racist underpinnings and undertow, it is precisely a moment, in fact a very, very, overdue moment, to speak directly about repentance.

You see, as unwelcome as repentance is as coffeetable, let alone pulpit, discourse, to indict someone by announcing that they must repent…well, arguably, you can’t really get more Lutheran.

Why?

Because telling someone to repent means that we are Calling A Thing What It Is.

Martin Luther used this phrase in the 21st Thesis of the Heidelberg Disputation, a series of propositions he presented to his Augustinian Order after he caught a little attention the prior year by nailing some 95 other theses onto a certain door in Wittenberg.

Point is, in this particular thesis of the Heidelberg Disputation, the 21st, he wrote this:

“The theology of glory calls ‘evil’ ‘good,’ and ‘good’ ‘evil.’

A theology of the cross calls the thing what it actually is.”

Telling someone that they need to repent simply calls a thing what it is.

White people, and we as a nation, and we as the ELCA, must repent of our racism, and we can’t do that unless we call it what it is.

~~~~~

Today we mark the Emmanuel Nine, and we say their names.

Reverend and Senator Sharonda Coleman-Singleton

Mrs. Cynthia Graham Hurd

Mrs. Susie J. Jackson

Mrs. Ethel Lee Lance

Rev. DePayne Middleton-Doctor

Reverend Clementa Pinckney

Tywanza Kibwe Diop Sanders

Reverend Daniel Lee Simmons, Sr.

Mrs. Myra Singleton Quirles Thompson

These black children of God died because Dylann Roof, a 21-year old far-right white supremacist and member of an ELCA congregation—and, lest we forget, also a child of God—sought to incite a race war by massacring black people whom, he believed, were “taking over the world.”

Somehow his online far-right radicalization held more power over him than did the call—if one was uttered clearly, or loudly, or at all?—to repent of it.

It is overwhelmingly poignant that the commemoration of this horrific crime falls just weeks after George Floyd was murdered and our country—even including the NASCAR community (!!)—is beginning to notice our entrenched, latent, systemic racism.

That’s the first step, of course, to Calling A Thing What It Is.

Noticing.

But we can’t notice, really, unless things are pointed out, unless things are named.

Only then do we have a chance to engage the holy act of repentance.

~~~~~

Rostered leaders are called to be pointer-outers, to be name-ers, to be Calling-A-Thing-What-It-Is-ers.

They are called by the Church at Large and then are called by specific congregations to steward the gospel which, contrary to a pretty decent share of Lutheran understanding, is not that your sins are forgiven.

The gospel, instead, is that Jesus is risen.

So when you invite someone into your community to a ministry of Word and Sacrament or Word and Service, you are calling them into your community to preach, teach, and live out the gospel.

That latter part, of course, this living out the gospel thing, isn’t just their professional vocation, but is their—our—baptismal one too.

The thing of it is, of course, is that the gospel would be positively irrelevant and in point of fact unnecessary if everything were fine, fine, just fine.

There is no need, that is, to pronounce life if life abounds for all anyway.

Nope.

But the thing of it is, the gospel is precisely relevant because there is still death, and an abundance of it.

And be not mistaken: death is present not just of the six-feet under kind, but of the kind that steals hopes, and spirits, and possibilities, and even our very humanity.

Racism is a tool of death.

And we need leaders of and in the Church to Call That Thing What It Is, because they are called—by all baptized Christians, including you!—to be theologians of the cross, to know that where there is death, precisely there is where there can be possibility of life.

If you want a theology of glory, if you want to be told that all is well when it is not, if you want a (self-proclaimed) leader who says “Peace, Peace,” when there is not peace, go MAGA (and look up Jeremiah 6:14 and surrounding verses).

MAGA puts babies in cages, and separates children from parents, and builds walls, and removes rights, and calls the KKK good people, and after violently forcing peaceful demonstrators off of the streets uses a holy church as a mere backdrop to score a political point with an upside down Bible held by a man who neither opens the book nor enters the building, and MAGA calls all such evil good.

(The leader of that Church’s synod, by the way, Bishop Mariann Edgar Budde, Called a Thing What It Is about all that nonsense, I’ll tell you what.)

But if you want a pastoral leader whose primary vocation is to proclaim the gospel, which means announcing life, you also called a leader who, inherent to that very call, needs to announce death.

So sit tight, then, because leaders are themselves becoming all the more aware that we all have some repenting to do.

That means it’s about to get awkward, and impolite, and insulting, and conflictual.

We can now appreciate how the crowds who heard John the Baptist felt.

But perhaps unbeknownst to them, and even to us, it is also about to get life-out-of-death-y too.

~~~~~

As it turns out, of course, it’s not just the primary vocation of a pastoral leader to announce and engage in repentance: it’s the primary vocation of any baptized Christian.

Pick up your cross, says the one who was himself baptized by, of all people and inconveniently, John the Baptist, yes, the one and the same, this wild-eyed, wild-haired, wild-way-ed man who at most every turn announced repentance as a mark of the reign and way of God.

“Be willing to die to all that is not of God, and follow me,” says Jesus.

Don’t follow MAGA.

Don’t follow racism.

Don’t follow white privilege.

But follow, rather, Jesus.

Repent, you see, repent of all that is not of God.

Let that die, so that you and others may live.

~~~~~

All of this is true.

But what is also true, on this tragic day five years ago, is that righteous people, faithful people, sisters and brothers in Christ people, died so that racism, rather than righteousness, could live.

Today, that is, there are nine six-foot-under deaths—nine of them—which need to be recalled.

Their deaths matter.

Remember their deaths, and remember their names.

And then in their honor be willing to also name the death-dealing ways of racism and our unwillingness to call it—on personal, congregational, denominational, national, and systemic levels—what it is.

And then repent.

If we can find the courage to hear racism be called what it is, namely not of God, not good, and in fact evil, we will discover that John the Baptist, as wild as his hair and his eyes and his ways were, was right.

Repent, he said, for the Reign of God is, indeed, near.

In fact, given that I have absolutely no athletic ability whatsoever, it is not a far stretch to imagine that I fell in love with the Twins and baseball precisely because I fell in love.

I don’t know what else would have gotten me to the ballpark except for the promise of my hand being held by a boy who held my heart too.

Before this particular boy entered my world, I’d never entered a baseball stadium ever, except to go to the one at Carson Park, in Eau Claire, Wisconsin, but that was just for the annual outdoor service held by the church my father served as an associate pastor at the time.

I imagine that both loves were aided by the fact that at the time, in my mid-to-late teens and early 20s, the Twins were on their late-80’s/early ‘90s winning streaks, with the likes of Kent Hrbek and Kirby Puckett sending out the hits and bringing in the runs and the World Series Titles.

It also didn’t hurt that my high school love was Lutheran, and handsome, and stole my heart the way Dan Gladden stole bases, sent kisses my way as finely as Bert Blyleven pitched his ball straight across the plate, and was as dependable a presence in my young life as shortstop Greg Gagne was in all of our lives, standing out on that field.

Truth be told, there isn’t a single Twins game I watch without thinking of those days, days that are precisely what Van Morrison had in mind when he crafted what is perhaps the best summer love song ever, “Brown Eyed Girl.”

~~~~~~~

This year, my kids have gotten into the game, and are now officially as fiendish about the Twins as am I.

My daughter Else is as old as I was, back in those halcyon days, so it is a bit mind-bending to watch her leaning into those squeaker-innings like I did, and do.

But E is learning the lingo, and when she doesn’t know the rules, she looks them up to learn, and wields that info like a pro while we are all munching our routinely home-made Cracker Jacks, which we gnaw on every game when we aren’t doing the same to our nails.

She’s my resident Dick Bremer.

And Karl, 18, traumatic brain injury be damned, he knows when our boys are up to the plate, and he knows when to say that we need a home run (sometimes desperately), and thanks to our five years in Regensburg Germany, he knows when the moment calls for a resounding “Scheisse!”, and though he can’t jump up when we get a run like his sister and I do, he beams his grin which is just as good if not better a celebration.

A friend of mine, Pastor Matt Steinhauer, stayed at my Spent Dandelion Theological Retreat Center a few weeks back.  He knew something of my love of the game, and so brought up this book by his friend Robert Benson: The Game: One Man, Nine Innings, a Love Affair with Baseball.

It’s a great read: lolls around like most of a baseball game does (in the book, he quotes that saying by Ray Fitzgerald, lover of baseball, who said, “A critic once characterized baseball as six minutes of action crammed into two and one-half hours” [28].)

But that’s part of the ambiance, the personality, of the game, right?

Baseball is less about a constant rush, is not about adrenaline fixes demanding regular top-offs, but is instead more about just showing up, about paying attention, and about being at the ready for the occasional thrill of those double plays, the exhilaration of glorious line drives, and the bask in the glory of the noble home runs.

That’s not to say that fans object to a series of pellmell cracks over the fence (I’m looking at that gorgeous win over Kansas City on Aug 3, thank you very much, where Nelson Cruz got 3 homers, sailed over the line in the same game as Jorge Polanco and CJ Cron offered a couple of their own to the sky by and by).

But while we all hope for those, much of baseball is not that.

Much of baseball is an unglamorous E for Effort at the plate, a slow pop fly hit or caught, a patient waiting for a batter to be either walked or struck out or maybe just maybe to hit that grounder that’ll be so unexpected and fast it’ll be missed by the pitcher who will inevitably reach for it, to no avail, and who will then turn to see the ball do everything short of wave as it passes on by.

Cue the obvious analogy to life: it’s mostly about showing up, and then expecting or hoping for a bit of lively drama injected into what is otherwise somewhat…routine.

But that low-hanging-but-still-bittersweet-fruit truth aside, here’s something else I’ve been thinking about, now that we Twins fans are somewhat in a wince-inducing “much of baseball is not that” phase of the Twins season.

True baseball fans, like the kind who buy their tickets and proudly wear their gear even in down periods, down seasons, down decades, true baseball fans still show up.

We might groan at the pitches so far to the East that they land in Wisconsin, the dervish-like swings that miss all but the dust they stir up, the coulda-caught-it-with-your-eyes-closed dropped flyballs, but the fact is, no loss is ever just due to one person, and deep down we know that.

We might point to one Boy of Summer with one hand while smacking our forehead with the other, but still, we know that, generally speaking at least, no game is ever entirely lost just because of one play, or one player.

We don’t say, for example, “Player X lost.”

We say “The Twins lost.”

In fact, we might even say, “We lost,” even if “we” weren’t ever on the field.

It’s a collective loss, a collective “Scheisse.”

It’s that ‘collective’ responsibility—both for wins and for losses—that I find interesting.

Outside of the game, when some event brings about or notes Life, even the passing of it, we do so with a communal marking, and we throw open doors: wedding receptions and birthday bashes and baby showers.

Even funerals are most often held with other people who grieve, or who care about those who are.

But when we drop the ball, so to speak, gosh do we do that either in isolation, or we are left in isolation.

Suddenly the collective interplay becomes the individual error.

Think divorces.

Think addictions.

Think arrests.

Think garden-variety poor choices.

In these sorts of occasions, then it’s awfully clear that “Player X struck out.”

There is rarely an acknowledgement of team responsibility, of compounding events, of the awareness that the ratio of good at bats to lousy at bats is about the same.

As Benson points out:

“Generally speaking the team that wins its division in the major leagues will win somewhere in the neighborhood of 85 to 95 games in the course of the season.  The other side of that statistic, of course, is that these winners will have managed to lose between 67-77 baseball games. You may be winning every other day, but you are pretty close to losing every other day too.” He goes on to note that in one season, after 150 games were in the books “one could check the statistics for the top home-run hitters in the majors and discover that two of the top five were also in the top five in strikeouts….‘Every pitch is a potential home run,’ said the pitcher Preacher Roe. That is true, but every pitch has more potential to be a strikeout or a double-play ball or a pop fly to left.” (86-87).

So who, I ask you, among us hasn’t dropped a ball, hasn’t swung and missed in a critical inning, hasn’t committed an error of epic proportions?

At least we’re out there, one could say.

So sure, we all strikeout, sometimes quite gloriously.

And yet, if you’re not a player, if you are just like rest of us mere mortals, never putting foot to field but only swinging foot out of bed to a regular life, you, we, are often left to our losses alone, because our actions, or lack thereof, in down periods, down seasons, down decades, are deemed undeserving of patience, support, or public allegiance.

What’s most remembered are our really bad plays.

That’s messed up.

I think more of us need to go to more baseball games to be reminded of some humility and some humanity.

Benson points out something else, though, something else that up and reminds me of Orthodox worship: in certain expressions of that liturgical tradition, see, no one is ever late or leaves early.

There’s a common understanding that God is being worshipped all of the time, even when we aren’t in church.  So there are always people in the sanctuary, and there are always people who aren’t there, and yet God is being worshiped all the time all the same.

Even during worship, there’s a line of people coming, and a line of people going, and it’s all good.

Benson writes something that smacks of the same.  It’s baseball’s version of the Communion of the Saints, in a way. He reminisces:

Every time I stand in line at a ballpark, I am aware of the people who have stood in such a line before, and of the people who are somehow still standing beside me.  There are my childhood friends Ricky and Nicky and the rest. There are my brother and my dad. Coach Taylor, who taught me how to play in the days when I thought I would be the next great Yankee infielder. I think of lying on my back on the hook rug in my grandfather’s living room watching the Game of the Week on black-and-white-television and learning to say “Podna” with Dizzy Dean and Pee Wee Reese.  I remember watching the World Series on television at school, back in the days when the Series was played in the sunlight and teachers were following it as well.  I remember the stickball games played with broomsticks and tennis balls, teh ones that we used to play on camping trips with families who’s fathers were named Henry and Billy and Joe….

I remember arriving before batting practice began and standing in the line at the gates to get into Coors Field in Denver on a hot summer afternoon the year that the ballpark opened.  And I remember the long line of cars trying to get into the parking lots of Camden Yards in Baltimore and Dodger Stadium in Los Angeles.  I remember the line of Yankee fans on the steps coming down from the elevated train in the Bronx, and the lone line of people that stretched out along the sidewalks that run down the hill to Turner Field in Atlanta.

Every line is different and every line is the same. (18-19)

Every line is different, and every line is the same.

If that isn’t the Communion of the Saints, well then I’m a Milwaukee Brewers fan (bless their hearts).

~~~~~~~

I’m not the first one nor will I be the last to notice that going to a baseball game is like going to church. We may believe in different teams/congregations/denominations, but we all go to worship just the same.

We’ve been going to the cathedrals for years and years, and we’ll keep going for years and years to come.  Outfits change, rules even change, but the love of the game and the crowd and the Cracker Jacks don’t.

Baseball even has saints, those who are the best that baseball offers up, and while we might all hope to be one one day, most of us just stand in wonder and awe before them, inspired by their stories, encouraged that maybe, just maybe we could be sort of like them one day, and in the ordinary (and reality-grounded) meantime, we are simply reminded of the incarnate beauty of the best of the game that we get to see in living, breathing motion.

In some ways, you see, baseball is what church, what a believer, aspires to be.

You struck out? Go on, sit down, come on up to bat again in a spell. Maybe you’ll do better. Maybe you won’t. But you’re still welcome on the plate again, regardless, again and again.

Getting tired on that mound of yours? Well done, good and faithful servant. You go take a rest now. Someone else has got it from here on out.

You sick and tired and hurt? You seem like a good candidate for the Injured List. Sit down, we’ll help you heal, and meanwhile, others have it covered.

You committed an error for all to see? Who hasn’t, I ask you. So, yeah, we’re mad. But we’ve got your back. We’ll come back. We’ll cheer you on again, because although we know that your stats won’t ever shake that blunder, your stats are more than that blunder too.

~~~~~~~

This August the 25th, the bottom of the summer’s 9th, I’m taking my two kids and my father to one last Minnesota Twins game. It’ll be their second ever, and my father’s first.

The kids and I, along with our Danish exchange student, went to a game this past May.

Twins against the White Sox.

We won.

I made the tickets while crossing my fingers and breathing a bit faster, less about pre-worrying about who would come out on top.

Instead, I was awfully fretful about accessibility.

Now, I’m not saying that Target Field is heaven, but I am saying that the place is as accessible a place as a person in a wheelchair could hope for, this side of those cloud-born turnstiles at the divine stadium entrance.

Ahem.

I mean of those heavenly, pearly gates.

We had a special entry point, adapted security measures, designated escorts: I seriously felt as if we were VIPs—and why wouldn’t we be? Karl can’t wait to tell his class about his home run he struck in this summer’s Miracle League.

Else and I have decided that this time, we might try paying more intentional attention to stats by way of grabbing a scorecard.

Being that we will be sitting smack dab beyond Left Field, we’ve also decided to be hopeful and bring a mitt along, just in case.

As for today, though, as on every day that the Twins play, the three of us, plus our two hounds, will be sitting in front of our TV.

On the wall next to each side of our TV—really only used for watching the news and playing the Wii with Karl and cheering on the Twins—is a pennant and two Homer Hankies: turns out that my late mama, who was a flag maker, was spotted at the Renaissance Festival in the late 80’s by someone or another affiliated with the Twins.  She didn’t so much know a baseball from a soccer ball, but was thrilled anyway to be asked to make two 8’ x 8’ Homer Hankies, during their Series streaks, one of which ended up hanging over the Minneapolis Star and Tribune Newspaper building, and the other over the Metrodome. The one that flew over Star and Tribune building got stolen, and to her dying day, she was so proud that someone had her 8’ x 8’ Homer Hanky hanging in their fraternity or basement den.

Come pregame time, homemade Cracker Jacks in hand and mouth, Karl, Else, and I will gather around that TV, and eagerly watch for the Twins trotting onto the field.

Hopefully the Twins will trot off of it with a win.

I’m a bit fearful that this season, they’re going to break my heart like that first boy did years ago, and like most every one since then, come to think of it.

But if they do, I will forgive them.

I’ll be back.

And so will they.

And who else do I need, anyway?

I have my son, I have my daughter, I have my father, I have my two hounds, I have gratitude and grins that far outweigh any regret and remorse about the loss of those sweet young-love-and-young-life days, I have Van Morrison, and I have the Communion of the Saints, those folks who not least of all loved, love, and will love the boys of summer (almost) as much as I do.

And I have tickets to see the Twins with my family one more time this season.

It is enough.

(P.S. Is it coincidence that the logo of my favorite wine almost mirrors the logo of my favorite team? I think not. A sign of something, if not the reign of God, the way I look at it.)

~~~~~

My new book, I Can Do No Other: The Church’s New Here We Stand Moment, published by Fortress Press, can be pre-ordered here.

In it, I make the case that while justification was the key matter of Luther’s Day, social justice is the key matter for ours.

Both delving into and departing from Luther’s framework, and by exploring historical and present-day expressions of righteous opposition to such blights as slavery, Hitler, white supremacy, patriarchy, religious bigotry, homophobia, xenophobia, and lack of concern for the earth, I seek to find both means for resistance and reasons for hope, grounded in the gospel that announces freedom, welcome, and life.

The reviews are in, and while I may not be worthy of them, I sure am thankful for them.

“Rev. Dr. Anna Madsen has a unique, prophetic voice as a Lutheran theologian. With passion and erudition, she brings Martin Luther’s liberating discovery of grace as a charge for Christian communities today to make justice happen, with hope embodied. ‘Our God is revealed in every move we make, and people are watching.'” –Kirsi Stjerna, Pacific Lutheran Theological Seminary

“Anna Madsen’s work is an unfolding wonder to me; her deeply spiritual reflections on very real issues in life and society hit me sometimes like a prophetic slap–and yet, beneath the critique and the concern for real human sin, the whisper of God’s mercy and love can always be heard. I am grateful for all I have learned–and continue to learn–from her.” –The Rev. Dr. Guy Erwin, Bishop of the Southwest California Synod, ELCA

“Rev. Dr. Madsen has gifted us with a systematic response to this divided, tragic, beautiful world, to her own personal tragedy and how it affected everything, and the call that Christians desperately need to hear right now to truly practice ‘justice and peace in all the earth.'” –Rev. Beth Birkholz, Holy Cross Lutheran Church, Livonia, MI

“In the word’s of Habakkuk 2:2 paraphrased, write it down, make it clear and run with it. That is exactly what Anna Madsen has accomplished in this book. Anna has connected the dots across time and space to help individuals and the Church to continue to reform. The church today is not our grandparents’ Lutheran Church (The church for that time served as called by God). The church of today is called to address the current issues facing the least of these, through the Gospel of Jesus The Christ.” –Rev. William C. Hamilton Jr., pastor St. John’s Lutheran Church, Jacksonville, Florida

“Anna Madsen was able to take ‘what we’ve heard and learned’ from Sunday School, Catechism, sermons, conversations and Bible studies, and expound her theological thoughts, in such a way, that will help those who read this, take pause and reflect on a wider view of possibilities. A seasoned learner or not so seasoned learner, is sure to get a broader sense of their own faith sense and practices as they help others to stretch their concept of God. Our challenge as disciples is to not always accept the status quo but to put our faith into action. Action in everyday life. I, personally, was moved by the concept of ‘The Anticipatory Church,’ and pray that somehow this is lifted as a vision of God’s possibilities.” –Rev. Victoria Hamilton, Jacksonville, Florida

Czeslaw Milosz wrote these words in his book The Captive Mind, and quoted them from the mouth of “an Old Jew of Galacia.”

I read them and I get goosebumps, every damn time.

Every time.

Now, it’s important to note that Milosz wrote those words in the context of fending off fascism.

(We might pass his book off as historical fiction, but these days, it is simultaneously both and neither one.)

Milosz began his book with these words because he was surrounded by people in power who claimed to know the indisputable truth. They purveyed it with uniform, loud, and even menacing voice, even if their take was achingly dissonant to the reality at hand.

If a citizen had the audacity to dispute Said Truth, their chutzpah would be rewarded either in painful secret, or by way of public display, a warning to any one else tempted to stir up counterviews and thereby stir up trouble.

For a mess of reasons, Milosz’ Old Jew has been messing with me as of late, as no small number of righteous Jews have done, young and old, many times before. He’s speaking to me across cultures and contexts and time to make me pause less about my fears about fascism and more about my faith and how it is proclaimed.

So I’m a Christian.

Moreover, I’m called to be a Christian pastor and theologian.

Moreover, I’m specifically called to serve out that vocation as a Lutheran in the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America.

Every noun in that sentence is a declaration of conviction.

Christian.

Pastor.

Theologian.

Lutheran.

ELCA.

With every one of those words, I am naming that I believe something is true—so true, that I stand behind it vocationally even.

Implicitly, I am therefore naming that something else is not….what…

As true?

True at all?

And I am left wondering, where am I on the Old Jew’s scale?

Closer to 55% right or 100% rascal?

Milosz has gotten under my skin all the more because of the confluence of all sorts of events: we Christians have just celebrated Easter, and in this very same month, Jews are being killed because they are Jews, Muslims are being killed because they are Muslims, and Christians are being killed because they are Christians.

And these people are being killed by fanatics, thugs, and the worst kind of rascals who believe that they are 100% right and these others are not even close.

It’s troubling.

It’s really troubling.

It’s troubling because, speaking for my tradition, I know for a fact that we do not presently have a habit of preaching that we should kill people of other faiths.

But….we do have a long history of preaching that very thing, and a long history of killing people of other faiths.

I can’t help but think that an honest look at ourselves means that Christians can’t help but own that it’s a bit in our DNA, a bit in our vibe, a bit of an undercurrent in who we are and what we do.

And we do not, of course, have a habit of preaching that people of other sacred texts deserve to be slandered in the name of God.

But…our sacred text slanders people of different traditions, and none so egregiously as the Jews, old and from Galicia or not.

In fact, laced through our texts and our traditions and our proclamation and child-catechesis is the notion that we are right and all the others are wrong.

In fact, a huge swath of Christians have picked up distinct sense that if someone doesn’t believe in Jesus as the Christ, then they are so wrong that they will get and they will deserve to get eternal damnation.

It is not a far stretch to say that if they deserve divine damnation after they croak, they deserve the best we can serve up of damnation in the name of God this side of the grave—and, hell: they probably just plain old deserve the grave.

Like, if it’s good enough for God…

The Old Jew Of Galicia, see, he’s poking me with this weathered stick of a cane I envision him holding, and he’s asking me whether (telling me that?) any claim of faith runs the risk of thuggery.

Maybe not explicitly, he might say, though often enough in just this way.

Instead, even by way of insinuation, and therefore insidiously, does any form of full-throated “I believe in the…” imply disdain and condemnation of people who have not happened to stumble on this same set of, sort of, beliefs.

He’s got a point, he does, and the point is sharp to my chest on which I imagine he’s tapping and in my heart right below.

Jews like questions better than Christians, as it turns out, and knowing this, I have been having an imaginary conversation with this Old Jew.

And I want to ask him so many things.

I want to ask him if a person can ever not believe something.

Like, even believing I am 55% right is a belief.

I want to ask him how one guards against haughty belief—like, being proud that I believe that I am only 55% right, in contrast to those 100% rascals out there.

I want to ask him how one can honor other people’s beliefs while still not believing them.

I want to ask him how, even if a person acknowledges that one doesn’t know what is actually the Full Scoop, the Real Deal, the Truth of It All, at the end of the day she/he/they/we must still believe in something, for to believe in nothing is nihilism, and not only is that also a belief, it is a treacherous one.

And then I want to confess some things to him.

I want to confess that, for reasons born of reason and born of faith and born simply out of the very happenstance of the family into which I was born, I do believe that Jesus is risen from the dead.

I want to confess that, even so, on any given day I am a Jew (this has been asserted to me not least of all by a dear friend of mine who is a Jew, though not old and rather from New York; on these given days am nearing 60%-or-over certitude that he is right).

I want to confess to him that I believe that God is bigger than either my Easter or his vigilant waiting for a Messiah—though God is both of those too.

And I want to confess that I preach Easter so adamantly, not to disdain those who are not Christians, and not to convert people to Christianity, but to convert Christians to the implications (perhaps even alert them to the notion that there are implications) of their purported beliefs, of their Christianity, of the gospel, of believing that Jesus is risen from the dead, implications like:

Feed.

Welcome.

Heal.

Turn over Tables.

Forgive.

Stand in Solidarity.

House.

Visit.

Call a Thing What It Is.

Care.

Look at Death in All Its Forms and Say That It Will Not Win Because It Has Already Lost.

Paradoxically, our Easter faith might even give rise to the notion that we are freed to reject the claim that our faith has it right and no one else does.

Truth is, nobody really knows, at the end of the day.

There is mystery.

But still.

But still.

One has to believe in something (who’s gonna tell the nihilists? Somebody’s got to tell them).

And because of reason and because of faith and because of quirks of birth, there is some grounding to believe that Jesus didn’t stay dead—though I can acknowledge that there are reasons and faith and quirks of birth to believe that the guy did stay dead, and that a person should still be tapping our feet and looking at our watches to wait for the Messiah.

And those Easter reasons fundamentally cause us to reject the very hate and bigotry and prejudice that that Old Jew is fighting: it just does so from a different angle.

So I want to ask this Old Jew from Galicia, especially in these days when the fascism of his day is rearing its head in our day, is it possible that 55% could tread too close to apathy?

Couldn’t 55% be dancing near complicity?

Isn’t 55% actually the friend of the very fascists he was condemning in his very own words, because 55% lends itself to timidity, to ambivalence, to tepidity, all of which are passive tools of the powers of malevolent authoritarianism and systemic, oppressive, status quo?

Can 100%, or even just 75%, well-stewarded for the sake of concern for the Least of These, for the sake of defiance against hate and cruelty be…righteous thuggery?

Is that a thing?

Could it be a thing?

And I imagine he will look at me, maybe give me a bit of a smile, sigh, and say, You might be right.

And I will look at him, and sigh, and say, You might be more right.

And I’d like to think that we will then raise some imaginary glasses, and toast to something I’ve come to call ‘tenacious humility.’

This is what I believe, and I will live out that belief fiercely.

But I might be 45% wrong.

Maybe more.

~~~~~

If you want to sit at the feet of a not-so-old Jew from New York, sign up for the blogs of my righteous friend Murray Haar here.

~~~~~

You can now pre-order Anna’s upcoming book published by Fortress Press! I Can Do No Other: The Church’s New Here We Stand Moment is available here, and is slated to come out on October 1, 2019.

”This book is born out of the conviction that at least two gods are currently competing for our collective trust: nationalism (and its many sub-manifestations) and quietism. Both make a case for and a claim on our allegiance, each by way of different motivations of self and institutional protection. Madsen looks at today’s modern context and asks: Where will the church stand in a day that is marked by globalization, polarization, racism, bigotry, and debates about justice for humanity and for the earth itself? While the Reformation church was built on the foundation of justification by grace, Madsen calls people of faith to a new reformation that will focus on standing for justice in the world. Madsen delves into who Jesus was, and how our claim that he died and was raised establishes our faith and impacts the way we live it out. She pays attention to Luther’s theology and juxtaposes it with our present context. She explores recent examples of Nazi resistance, liberation theology, black and womanist theology, and feminist theology, each of which come at social justice in their unique ways, with a common conviction that justice work is central to the Christian life. She speaks of how our faith grounding and our faith history weave together and entwine themselves into our present moment, offering both warnings and encouragement. And last, a case is made that justice, anchored in justification, is our new Reformation moment, one not inconsistent with Luther’s theology, but weighted differently to address the different weighty concerns of our day. A study guide is included to encourage group conversation and action.”

I’m continuing my blog series covering official religious statements on various social, justice, and medical ethics issues, and lining them up with the religious affiliations of various politicians.

(Just scroll down to go directly to the religious groups, their statements, and the politicians affiliated with each group)

Hopefully, the blogs will shine some light on faith systems that intentionally make political and social claims; to discover what these claims are–and whether there appears to be any common ground from group to group; and to raise some questions and have some conversations about the appropriateness, let alone the intent and effectiveness, of religious groups asserting a certain claim and stake in any given issue.

Listing the religious affiliation of each politician seemed a natural extension of this project.

Every congressperson has publicly self-offered the listed religious identity below, and to that degree, must have some level of fidelity to it. (I gathered the information from Project Vote Smart, a respected volunteer group which helped me considerably; from this list from the Pew Forum and CQ Roll Call; and, when I had a hunch that more specific information than just “Christian” or “Protestant” might be available, I gleaned further specifics from various publicly available interviews online.)

There is a pretty significant difference, say, between the theology of Southern Baptists and members of the United Church of Christ.  Those who belong to a given group must have some affinity for the group’s belief systems and priorities welling up from them.  What does this mean, if anything, on the ground (or on the Hill, as the case may be)?

And should it mean anything?

The first blog covered gun control.

The one at hand reviews religious statements about economic life and poverty.

This topic proved to me more broad and handled in more ways than that of gun control, and in that sense was trickier to compile.  Since several denominations and religious groups covered the issues of both domestic and global poverty, as well as job creation, taxation, budgetary, and debt matters, all under the rubric of “economic justice,” I have done the same.

Sometimes, there were so many links that I linked to pages with more links, so as not to overwhelm you with the extensive information.

As many groups have specific statements about unions and collective bargaining, I’ll have a separate blog on that one issue (almost exactly a year ago, because of the Wisconsin tumult, I wrote an earlier OMG blog on the matter, listing some denominational statements).

As before, I’ll list religious grouping headings (where there are different “flavors” with the same heading, like with Jews and Lutherans, I will have sub-headings under each grouping), then a quick description of each tradition’s stance on the issue (if found).  I’ll then offer a few links to their statements and brief excerpts of the relevant texts.

Keep in mind, I have only listed the official stances as I’ve found them. Within each community, you can be sure that there are a variety of active organizations and voices which disagree with official denominational stances.

Since the last blog, I have written to each denomination to ask for specific links to statements.  When one was given, I will use that: when not, I will use the best of my google-sleuthing to identify any statements that more or less seem to be reflective of any official position.

If there are no clear statements, I will simply write “No official statement,” but am happy to be corrected.

If there are any further links, clarifications, additions, or corrections, I will gladly update the blog with them.  It was a big project and so I fear and yet am sure that there will be a few blips.

The extent of inter-denominational and inter-religious collaboration about poverty and economic justice was, frankly, both astonishing and heartening.

One document, signed by many faith leaders, including those from groups which otherwise have no policy statement, received a lot of press, and so I’m highlighting it at the beginning of this blog.

It’s called the “Circle of Protection,” and was crafted in response to and against the Paul Ryan budget, and any other budget that threatens protection of the poor.  Because the document has gained much support, recognition, and respect, I will put “CoP” by any denomination that has an official representative who signed it.

You can find this piece here, (the link to the organization’s website is here) but the letter itself is both short enough and worthy enough of a full excerpt:

“In the face of historic deficits, the nation faces unavoidable choices about how to balance needs and resources and allocate burdens and sacrifices. These choices are economic, political—and moral.

As Christians, we believe the moral measure of the debate is how the most poor and vulnerable people fare. We look at every budget proposal from the bottom up—how it treats those Jesus called “the least of these” (Matthew 25:45). They do not have powerful lobbies, but they have the most compelling claim on our consciences and common resources. The Christian community has an obligation to help them be heard, to join with others to insist that programs that serve the most vulnerable in our nation and around the world are protected. We know from our experience serving hungry and homeless people that these programs meet basic human needs and protect the lives and dignity of the most vulnerable. We believe that God is calling us to pray, fast, give alms and to speak out for justice.

As Christian leaders, we are committed to fiscal responsibility and shared sacrifice. We are also committed to resist budget cuts that undermine the lives, dignity, and rights of poor and vulnerable people. Therefore, we join
with others to form a Circle of Protection around programs that meet the essential needs of hungry and poor people at home and abroad.

1. The nation needs to substantially reduce future deficits, but not at the expense of hungry and poor people.
2. Funding focused on reducing poverty should not be cut. It should be made as effective as possible, but not cut.
3. We urge our leaders to protect and improve poverty-focused development and humanitarian assistance to promote a better, safer world.
4. National leaders must review and consider tax revenues, military spending, and entitlements in the search for ways to share sacrifice and cut deficits.
5. A fundamental task is to create jobs and spur economic growth. Decent jobs at decent wages are the best path out of poverty, and restoring growth is a powerful way to reduce deficits.
6. The budget debate has a central moral dimension. Christians are asking how we protect “the least of these.” “What would Jesus cut?” “How do we share sacrifice?”
7. As believers, we turn to God with prayer and fasting, to ask for guidance as our nation makes decisions about our priorities as a people.
8. God continues to shower our nation and the world with blessings. As Christians, we are rooted in the love of God in Jesus Christ. Our task is to share these blessings with love and justice and with a special priority for those who are poor.”

The signatories are listed here:

AFRICAN METHODIST EPISCOPAL:  Statements, CoP

The AME does not have a specific statement on economic justice as a broad topic, but rather addresses specific legislation that attends to economic well-being for all.

Two issues came up quickly: the jobs bill, and the fiscal cliff negotiations.

To the first, the AME heartily endorsed Pres. Obama’s Jobs Act, saying:

“African-American families and communities are laboring to make ends meet at a time when many American corporations have opted to move their operations to emerging nations, where regulations are loose and where labor is well below what is considered to be a living wage in America. Other corporations that are financially thriving have opted to simply ‘sit’ on their funds rather than offering jobs to American citizens.

Those who vigorously embrace the free market in their political rhetoric should urge their corporate supporters to offer the well paying jobs that feed the engine of the free market. Those who trumpet their religion and co-mingle it with their patriotism and partisan political views should remember the admonition of the historical Jesus to focus not on the well being of the rich and influential, but on the well being of ‘the least of these.’ They must lay aside their stubborn refusal to compromise and remember that the Creator urged us through the Prophet Isaiah to ‘reason together.'”

To the second, to fiscal cliff negotiations, they have dovetailed statement-efforts with the Methodist Church as their official statement, a statement which reads, in part:

“As you continue efforts to resolve the budget impasse, the General Board of Church & Society of The United Methodist Church urges you to reorder our nation’s fiscal and budget policy to reflect our shared concern for those living in poverty and all those struggling on the economic margins. The real crisis in the United States and around the world is not the so-called “fiscal cliff,” but rather the continued manipulation of God’s economy of abundance into a world where the wants of the few have taken priority over the needs of the many. A moral budget and economy would prioritize the needs of the poor, require more from the wealthiest among us and value true human security over a perpetual warfare state.”

Three headings section of more specific goals, namely that the Congress should “Prioritize the Needs of the Poor,” “Require More from the Wealthiest Amongst Us,” and “Value True Human Security over the Warfare State.”

House Members: Terri A. Sewell (D-AL), Alcee L. Hastings (D-FL), Gregory W. Meeks (D-NY), James E. Clyburn (D-SC), Yvette D. Clarke (D-NY)

ANGLICAN CATHOLICS: No official statement

House Member: F. James Sensenbrenner Jr. (R-WI)

BAPTISTS: (Some CoP)

Southern Baptists: No official statement.

American Baptists: (CoP) There is an official statement found here.  The statement uses the rubric of “industry” more often than “economic,” and so seems to be geared more to private companies and their treatment of its labor force.  Still, an excerpt follows here:

“Recognizing in the words of Christ “One is your Master, even Christ, and all ye are brothers,” the abiding charter of democracy and seeing in this the summons to realize the democracy of all life, we believe that this Christian principle applied to industry implies that industry is a social service whose ruling motive should be not the profit of the few, but the welfare of all, and that the service motive must become the dominant spirit in both the methods and processes of industry.”

House Members: Robert B. Aderholt (R-AL), Spencer Bachus (R-AL), Mike D. Rogers (R-Baptist), Trent Franks (R-AZ), Rick Crawford (R-AR), Tim Griffin (R-AR), Steve Womack (R-AR), Karen Bass (D-CA), Duncan Hunter (R-CA), Barbara Lee (D-CA), Kevin McCarthy (R-CA), Tom McClintock (R-CA), Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA), Corrine Brown (D-FL), Vern Buchanan (R-FL), Steve Southerland II (R-FL), Daniel Webster (R-FL), John Barrow (D-GA), Sanford D. Bishop Jr (D-GA), Paul Broun (R-GA), Doug Collins (R-FL), Tom Graves (R-GA), John Lewis (D-GA), Austin Scott (R-GA), David Scott (D-GA), Lynn Westmoreland (R-GA), Danny K. Davis (D-IL), Bobby L. Rush (D-IL),  Aaron Schock (R-IL), Martin Stutzman (R-IN), Harold Rogers (R-KY), Rodney Alexander (R-LA), John Fleming (R-LA),Cedric L. Richmond (D-LA), Elijah Cummings (D-MD), Donna Edwards (D-MD), Steny H. Hoyer (D-MD), John Conyers Jr. (D-MI), Gregg Harper (R-MS), Alan Nunnelee (R-MS), Sam Graves (R-MO),Steven Horsford (D-NV), Donald M. Payne Jr (D-NJ), Steve Pearce (R-NM), Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY), G.K. Butterfield (D-NC), George E.B. Holding (R-NC), David E. Price (D-NC), Joyce Beatty (D-OH), Marcia L. Fudge (D-OH),  Jim Bridenstine (R-OK), James Lankford (R-OK), Frank D. Lucas (R-OK), Chaka Fattah (D-PA), Jeff Duncan (R-SC), Trey Gowdy (R-SC), K. Michael Conaway (R-TX), Bill Flores (R-TX), Louie Gohmert (R-TX), Al Green (D-TX), Eddie Bernice Johnson (R-TX), Randy Neugebauer (R_TX), Steve Stockman (R-TX), Marc Veasey (D-TX), Randy Weber (R-TX), J. Randy Forbes (R-VA), Gwen Moore (D-WI), Reid Ribble (R-WI).

Senate Members: John Boozman (R-AR), Charles E. Grassley (R-IA), Mitch McConnell (R-KY), Thad Cochran (R-MS), Roger Wicker (R-MS), Roy Blount (R-MS), Tom Coburn (R-OK), Lindsey Graham (R-SC), John Thune (R-SD), Ted Cruz (R-TX)

BUDDHISTS: No official statement.

House Members: Hank Johnson (D-GA), Colleen Hanabusa (D-HI)

Senate Member: Mazie K Hirono (D-HI)

CHRISTIAN REFORMED: Statements

The Christian Reformed tradition has a two-fold approach.  They encourage their members to advocate for economic justice through Bread for the World (info below) and, in Canada, through Dignity for All.

Additionally, however, the CRC encourages direct action, action which “address[es] issues of poverty and injustice by exposing problems at their roots.”  This link leads people to a long list of ways in which members address poverty and related blights in their own communities and in extended communities.

House Member: Bill Huizenga (R-MI)

CHRISTIAN SCIENCE:

In response to my inquiry, I was directed to the following link http://christianscience.com/what-is-christian-science#social-political-and-global-issues, which says “People who practice Christian Science have diverse opinions. The church takes no official position on social, political, or global issues. One thing Christian Scientists can agree on and feel passionate about is the need to pray about the difficult issues facing our world.”

House Member: Lamar Smith (R-TX), Robert W. Goodlatte (R-VA)

CHURCH OF CHRIST: No official statement

House Member: Janice Hahn (D-CA), Brett Guthrie (R-KY), Ted Poe (R-TX)

Senate Member: John Cornyn (R-TX)

CONGREGATIONALISTS/UNITED CHURCH OF CHRIST: Statements, CoP

From their Economic Justice Home Page they write:

“Unemployment, low wages, unsafe jobs, globalization, the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer, taxes (who pays and how much), the right to form a union (and why someone might want to), imports from China and closed factories in the U.S. – these are issues of economic justice. And they are very complicated issues.

But things are a little simpler for people of faith. We measure the economy against one fundamental truth: the earth and all that is in it belong to God (Ps. 24:1). Moreover, God intends that we fully share God’s gifts (Exodus 16: 16-18). But we know that this radical equality is not reflected in the economic realities of our world. Some of us have very little while others have very much.

As people of faith, before we begin working to change the economic system, we must first discern, as best we can, a vision of God’s will for our society and our economy. For many people, this would be a world where no one is poor, homeless, living in substandard housing, or lacking the nutritious food needed for a healthy life. Everyone who wanted a job would have one.

Once we have a vision, we can we begin working to put it in place – by lobbying our elected representatives for the needed legislation, standing with striking workers, resisting unfair international trade and investment agreements, sharing our abundance, ensuring the social safety net is sufficient, and taking other actions to make certain that all God’s children receive a fair share of the resources that God provides for us all.”

And then the have no fewer than 20 links to issues related to poverty and its eradication, ranging from Social Security to Worker Justice to Race, Ethnicity, and Economic Justice.

Here are links to official pronouncements about Economic Justice, which include the following words: “”…the struggle to achieve economic justice for all of God’s people is an imperative of the Christian faith, a confession that we have done too little to correct the economic injustices of our nation and the world … [and] a statement of our commitment to transform the structures of church and society by working for economic justice.”  Describes the “marks of a just economy” including: all people have access to basic material necessities, enhances human dignity, is inclusive, assures equality of opportunity, has preferential option for the poor, honors creation, and promotes international peace and well-being. Commitment to achieving an economic bill of rights including guaranteed national minimum income level, universal health care, full employment, affordable housing, and quality education for all.”

House Member: Elizabeth Esty (D-CT), Bill Enyart (D-IL), Fred Upton (R-MI)

Senate Member: Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), Max Baucus (D-MT)

EPISCOPALIANS/ANGLICANS: Statements, CoP

In addition to advocating for direct solutions to poverty and establishing a Network for Economic Justice Advocacy, and creating a thorough issue-bulleted .pdf detailing specific issue papers, the Church also has an extensive list of official resolution after resolution about a wide-variety of poverty-related matters.  You can find that list here.

House Members: Jo Bonner (R-AL), Don Young (R-AK), Julia Brownley (D-CA), Sam Farr (D-CA), Scott Tipton (R-CO), Ander Crenshaw (R-FL), John Mica (R-FL), Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL), Frederica S. Wilson (D-FL), Jack Kingston (R-GA), Peter Roskam (R-IL), Garland “Andy” Barr IV (R-KY), Chris Van Hollen (D-MD), Niki Tsongas (D-MA), Gary Peters (D-MI), Ann McLane Kuster (D-NH), Robert E. Andrews (D-NJ), Rodney Frelinghuysen (R-NJ), Louise M. Slaughter (D-NY), Kurt Schrader (D-OR), Greg Walden (R-OR), Tom Rice (R-SC), Jim Cooper (D-TN), Scott DesJarlais (R-TN), Michael C. Burgess (R-TX), Blake Farenthold (R-TX), Jeb Hensarling (R-TX), Morgan Griffith (R-VA), Robert C. Scott (D-VA), Rob Wittman (R-VA), Suzan DelBene (D-WI), Jim McDermott (D-WA), Adam Smith (D-WA), David B. McKinley (R-WV)

Senate Members: John McCain (R-AZ), Saxby Cambliss (R-GA), Angus King (I-ME), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI)

HINDUS: No centralized body.

House Member: Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI)

JEWS:

Reform Jews:  Statements

Here, Reform Jews make reference to a long tradition of support for the poor, and builds upon those earlier resolutions:

“The Reform Movement has always acted upon fundamental Jewish ideals by advocating for children, the poor, disenfranchised, the elderly, the sick, the disabled and the ‘stranger among us.’ In past resolutions we have called for full employment programs, social welfare entitlements for public housing, day care, family planning, health and legal services and income maintenance assistance programs. In 1973, the URJ urged Congress to expand social programs, and in 1981 opposed efforts to cut funding to education, job training, food subsidies and many other social programs that were in danger of losing some, if not all, of their funding.

Just before the passage of the 1996 welfare reform law, the URJ passed a resolution entitled ‘Our Economic Commitment to America’s Poor.’ This 1995 resolution recognized the importance of prudent fiscal reforms and welfare reform, but asserted that these reforms should not be made on the backs of the most needy. The resolution further asserted that ‘the United States government [must]”ensure an adequate, federally guaranteed safety net to protect our nation’s most vulnerable populations.’ Any legislation that does not meet the above standard should not be passed by Congress or signed into law by the President.”

Also under this link, further links of advocacy crafted by groups under the Reformed umbrella can be found, including those provided by the Women of Reform Judaism, the Union for Reform Judaism, and the Central Conference of Reformed Rabbis.  There are several worthwhile links to be found under each group, and I encourage you to click as many as you can.

Additionally, the Reform Tradition encourages economic justice advocacy here.

Orthodox Jews:  No official statement.

PAN-JEWISH ORGANIZATIONS

B’nai B’rith:  No official statement.

The Jewish Council for Public Affairs: Statements

In addition to a regular journal dedicated to covering issues of poverty, it advocates for economic justice in a number of ways, including dealing specifically with the plight of elderly citizens, usury, and reform of the federal poverty measure, along with broader measures to curb poverty suffered by a number of groups.

House Members: Susan A. Davis (D-CA), Alan Lowenthal (D-CA), Adam B. Schiff (D-CA), Brad Sherman (D-CA), Henry Waxman (D-CA), Jared Polis (D-CO), Ted Deutsch (D-FL), Lois Frankel (D-FL), Alan Grayson (D-FL), Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL), Jan Schakowsky (D-IL), Brad Schneider (D-IL), John Yarmuth (D-KY), Sander M. Levin (D-MI), Eliot L. Engel (D-NY), Steve Israel (D-NY), Nita M. Lowey (D-NY), Jarrold Nadler (D-NY), Allyson Y. Schwartz (D-PA), David Cicilline (D-RI), Steve Cohen (D-TN), Eric Cantor (R-VA)

Senate Members: Barbara Boxer (D-CA), Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), Brian Schatz (D-HI), Benjamin L. Cardin (D-MY), Carl Levin (D-MI), Al Franken (D-MN), Frank R. Lautenberg (D-NJ), Charles E. Schumer (D-NY), Ron Wyden (D-OR), Bernie Sanders (I-VT)

LUTHERANS:

Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA): Statements, CoP

In this statement from 1999, the ELCA stated :

“An economy (oikonomia or “management of the household”) is meant to meet people’s material needs. The current market-based economy does that to an amazing degree; many are prospering as never before. At the same time, others continue to lack what they need for basic subsistence. Out of deep concern for those affected adversely, we of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America here assess economic life today in light of the moral imperative to seek sufficient, sustainable livelihood for all.“

Culled from each of these three headings (sufficient, sustainable, livelihood), and additional concerns, the ELCA calls for the following bulleted items:

• scrutiny of how specific policies and practices affect people and nations that are the poorest, and changes to make policies of economic growth, trade, and investment more beneficial to those who are poor;
• efforts to increase the participation of low-income people in political and civic life, and citizen vigilance and action that challenges governments and other sectors when they become captive to narrow economic interests that do not represent the good of all;
• shifts throughout the world from military expenditures to purposes that serve the needs of low-income people;
• support for family planning and enhanced opportunities for women so that population pressures might be eased; [7]
• reduction of overwhelming international debt burdens in ways that do not impose further deprivations on the poor, and cancellation of some or all debt where severe indebtedness immobilizes a country’s economy;
• investments, loan funds, hiring practices, skill training, and funding of micro-enterprises and other community development projects that can empower low-income people economically.

• policies that promote stable families, strong schools, and safe neighborhoods;
• addressing the barriers individuals face in preparing for and sustaining a livelihood (such as lack of education, transportation, child care, and health care).

• public and private sector partnerships to create jobs and job retention programs;
• national economic policies that support and advance the goal of low unemployment.
• other employers to engage in similar practices [hiring without discrimination; compensating fairly; providing adequate benefits; ownership in decision-making; and freedom to engage in unions and collective bargaining];
• government enforcement of regulations against discrimination, exploitative work conditions and labor practices (including child labor), and for the right of workers to organize and bargain collectively;
• public policies that ensure adequate social security, unemployment insurance, and health care coverage;
• a minimum wage level that balances employees’ need for sufficient income with what would be significant negative effects on overall employment;
• tax credits and other means of supplementing the insufficient income of low-paid workers in order to move them out of poverty.

• government to provide adequate income assistance and related services for citizens, documented immigrants, and refugees who are unable to provide for their livelihood through employment;
• adequate, consistent public funding for the various low-income services non-profit organizations provide for the common good of all;
• scrutiny to ensure that new ways of providing low-income people with assistance and services (such as through the private sector) do not sacrifice the most vulnerable for the sake of economic efficiency and profit;
• correction of regressive tax systems, so that people are taxed progressively in relation to their ability to pay;
• opposition to lotteries and other state-sponsored gambling because of how these regressive means of raising state revenues adversely affect those who are poor.[10]

• Too much:  Because most of us in the United States have far more than we need, we can easily fall into bondage to what we have. We then become like the young man Jesus encountered, whose bondage to his possessions kept him from following Jesus (Matthew 19:16-22; Mark 10:17-22; Luke 18:18-25).
• corporate policies that lessen the disparities between compensations of top corporate executives and that of the workers throughout an organization;
• corporate governance that is accountable for the effects of a company’s practices on workers, communities, and the environment here and throughout the world;
• scrutiny of the tax breaks, subsidies, and incentives many companies receive, to assure that they serve the common good;
• enforcement of laws to prevent the exercise of inordinate market power by large corporations;
• appropriate government regulatory reform so that governments can monitor private sector practices more effectively and efficiently in an ever-changing global economy.
• appropriate policies and regulations that help reverse environmental destruction;
• planning that accounts for the impact of regional growth on communities and ecosystems;
• ending subsidies for economic activities that use up non-renewable natural resources;
• companies to pay more fully for the wider social and environmental costs of what they produce;
• the development and use of more energy-efficient technologies.
• changes to assure that farmers will receive a greater proportion of the retail food dollar;
• adequate prices for agricultural products so that farmers can be compensated fairly for their labor and production costs;
• sustainable agricultural practices that protect and restore the regenerative capacities of the land, rather than practices that deplete the land (for example, by measuring productivity only by short-term agricultural yields);
• more just work conditions for farm workers, especially immigrants, and opportunities for them to acquire their own land;
• greater entry-level opportunities for the next generation of family farmers.
• support of the above strategies by governments, financial institutions, and the wider society;
• alternatives to gambling as a means of community economic development;
• grants and low-interest loans that enable small companies and farms to get started, develop, and expand in order to provide livelihood for more people in low-income communities.

House Members: Lois Capps (D-CA), Zoe Lofgren (D-CA), Tom Letham (R-IA), Chellie Pingree (D-ME), Collin C. Peterson (D-MN), Tim Walz (D-MN), Bill Shuster (R-PA), Diane Black (R-TN), John Carter (R-TX), Tom Petri (R-WI), Denny Heck, D-WA

Senate Members: Martin Heinrich (D-NM), Sherrod Brown (D-OH), Jeff Merkley (D-OR), Tim Johnson (D-SD)

Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod (LCMS): I received the following from the LCMS Information Center:

“…It is the usual practice of the LCMS not to take an official ‘position’ which would bind the consciences of its members on purely political issues (i.e., issues concerning which God’s Word does not clearly speak).  Rather, the LCMS encourages its members to follow their own individual consciences in supporting candidates, legislation and social and political efforts which/whom they believe would help to create a better and safer society.

For more information, see the various reports of the Synod’s Commission on Theology and Church Relations on “Social/Ethical Issues,” which are available on the Web site of the CTCR (www.lcms.org/ctcr).”

House Members: Cory Gardner (R-CO), John Shimkus (R-IL), Larry Buschon (R-IN), Erik Paulsen (R-MN), Dave Reichert (R-WA), Cynthia M. Lummis (R-WY)

Lutheran Congregations in Mission for Christ (LCMC): No official statement

North American Lutheran Church (NALC): No official statement

Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod (WELS): No official statement

House Member: Ron Kind (D-WI)

Senate Member: Ron Johnson (R-WI)

MENNONITES: No official statement, CoP

BUT, in the stead of an official stance on poverty, they maintain that Jesus’ words ought to speak for them:

“Matthew 25: 44-45

Then the people will ask, “Lord, when did we fail to help you when you were hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in jail?” The king will say to them, “Whenever you failed to help any of my people, no matter how unimportant they seemed, you failed to do it for me.”  Contemporary English Version (CEV)

Luke 16:19-25

There was a rich man who was dressed in purple and fine linen and lived in luxury every day. At his gate was laid a beggar named Lazarus, covered with sores and longing to eat what fell from the rich man’s table. Even the dogs came and licked his sores. “The time came when the beggar died and the angels carried him to Abraham’s side. The rich man also died and was buried. In hell, where he was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far away, with Lazarus by his side. So he called to him, ‘Father Abraham, have pity on me and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, because I am in agony in this fire.’ But Abraham replied, ‘Son, remember that in your lifetime you received your good things, while Lazarus received bad things, but now he is comforted here and you are in agony.’  New International Version (NIV)”

METHODISTS: Statements, CoP

At the United Methodist Building in DC, they’ve had a banner flowing with “cliff notes” for Congress to see, with three points:

1. Protect the poor,
2. Create good jobs for all, and
3. End the warfare state.

These points were summarized also in a letter to Pres. Obama and Congress, found here.  It begins:

“As you continue efforts to resolve the budget impasse, the General Board of Church & Society of The United Methodist Church urges you to reorder our nation’s fiscal and budget policy to reflect our shared concern for those living in poverty and all those struggling on the economic margins. The real crisis in the United States and around the world is not the so-called “fiscal cliff,” but rather the continued manipulation of God’s economy of abundance into a world where the wants of the few have taken priority over the needs of the many. A moral budget and economy would prioritize the needs of the poor, require more from the wealthiest among us and value true human security over a perpetual warfare state.”

This link connects you to several further economic statements concerning the budget, taxes, gambling, living wages, and hunger.

The UMC makes a claim here that I have not discovered as boldly stated on any other religious group’s site [italics mine]:

“Therefore, we do not hold poor people morally responsible for their economic state. To begin to alleviate poverty, we support such policies as: adequate income maintenance, quality education, decent housing, job training, meaningful employment opportunities, adequate medical and hospital care, and humanization and radical revisions of welfare programs.

Since low wages are often a cause of poverty, employers should pay their employees a wage that does not require them to depend upon government subsidies such as food stamps or welfare for their livelihood.

House Members: Tom Cotton (R-AR), Doris Matsui (D-CA), Mark Takano (D-CA), Mike Coffman (R-CO), Jeff Miller (R-FL), Rich Nugent (R-FL), Bill Posey (R-FL), C.W. Bill Young (R-FL), Rob Woodall (R-GA), Dave Loebsack (D-IA), Lynn Jenkins (R-KS), Kevin Yoder (R-KS), Thomas Massie (R-KY), Edward Whifield (R-KY), C.A. Dutch Ruppersberger (D-MD), Mike Rogers (R-MI), John Kline (R-MN), Bennie Thompson (D-MO), Emanuel Cleaver II (D-MO), Lee Terry (R-NE), Richard Judson (R-NC), Bob Gibbs (R-OH), Steve Stivers (R-OH), Tom Cole (R-OK), Stephen Fincher (R-TN), Phil Roe (R-TN), Joe L. Barton (R-TX), John Culberson (R-TX), Lloyd Doggett (D-TX), Kay Granger (R-TX), Gene Green (D-TX), Ralph M. Hall (R-TX), Sam Johnson (R-TX), Pete Olson (R-TX), Pete Sessions (R-TX), Derek Kilmer (D-WA), Rick Larsen (D-WA)

Senate Members: Jeff Sessions (R-AL), Johnny Isakson (R-GA), Jerry Moran (R-KS), Pat Roberts (R-KS), Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), Debbie Stabenow (D-MI), Richard Burr (R-NC), Rob Portman (R-OH)

MORMONS: No official statement

House Members: Matt Salmon (R-AZ), Howard P. “Buck” McKeon (R-CA), Raul R. Labrador (R-ID), Mike Simpson (R-ID), Rob Bishop (R-UT), Jason Chaffetz (R-UT), Jim Matheson (D-UT), Chris Stewart (R-UT)

Senate Members: Jeff Flake (R-AZ), Michael D. Crapo (R-ID), Dean Heller (R-NV), Harry Reid (D-NV), Tom Udall (D-NM), Orrin Hatch (R-UT), Mike Lee (R-UT)

MUSLIMS: Statements

The Islamic Society of North America has responded to my inquiries about faith-related stances with nothing but graciousness.  This pan-Islamic organization represents many of the Islamic voices in the United States, and can be considered to be the most comprehensive source of statements from Muslims in the U.S.

Regarding poverty, the ISNA has partnered with Fighting Poverty with Faith, an inter-religious group that addresses poverty by way of its root causes, stating “We enlist the moral authority and organizing power of the faith community to ensure meeting the needs of those living in poverty is a national priority. This mobilization utilizes the strength of the coordinated faith community to move individuals and communities to action and advocate for clear, immediate policy solutions to address the root causes of poverty.” Its goal is to cut domestic poverty in half by 2020.

This is but one expression of the organizations advocacy on behalf of the poor.  One more link from July 2011 demonstrates the deep concern regarding the governmental threatened cuts to poverty assistance programs.  Says, Dr. Sayyid M. Syeed, ISNA National Director of Interfaith and Community Alliances, “It is our religious duty as part of the faith communities to convey our concerns about the problems of the budget cuts that will directly impact low income individuals and the dispossessed. We are asking for a budget that should be just and equitable.  It is our Islamic duty because this is one of the pillars of Islam.”

House Members: Andre Carson (D-IN), Keith Ellison (D-MN)

CHURCH OF THE NAZARENES: Statement

Although there is no statement about political advocacy, the web site for the Church of the Nazarenes states the following:

The Church of the Nazarene believes that Jesus commanded His disciples to have a special relationship to the poor of this world; that Christ’s Church ought, first, to keep itself simple and free from an emphasis on wealth and extravagance and, second, to give itself to the care, feeding, clothing, and shelter of the poor. Throughout the Bible and in the life and example of Jesus, God identifies with and assists the poor, the oppressed, and those in society who cannot speak for themselves. In the same way, we, too, are called to identify with and to enter into solidarity with the poor and not simply to offer charity from positions of comfort. We hold that compassionate ministry to the poor includes acts of charity as well as a struggle to provide opportunity, equality, and justice for the poor. We further believe that the Christian responsibility to the poor is an essential aspect of the life of every believer who seeks a faith that works through love.

Finally, we understand Christian holiness to be inseparable from ministry to the poor in that it drives the Christian beyond his or her own individual perfection and toward the creation of a more just and equitable society and world. Holiness, far from distancing believers from the desperate economic needs of people in our world, motivates us to place our means in the service of alleviating such need and to adjust our wants in accordance with the needs of others. (2001)

House Member: Kenny Marchant (R-TX)

ORTHODOX TRADITIONS: No official statements (Orthodox Church in America signed the CoP)

House Members: Darrell Issa [Antioch Orthodox Christian Church] (R-CA), Gus Bilirakis [Greek] (R-FL), John Sarbanes [Greek] (D-MD), Justin Amash [Greek] (R-MI), Dina Titus [Greek] (D-NV)

PENTECOSTALS: No unified body

House Member: Markwayne Mullin (R-OK)

PRESBYTERIANS: Statements, CoP

In the Fall of 2010, the Presbyterian Church-USA created a document entitled Living Through Economic Crisis: The Church’s Witness in Troubled Times. Following are a few excerpts:

“In summary, these two principles, (1) economic justice for all (the establishment of economic conditions that support the human flourishing of all), and (2) sustainability (the establishment of conditions of economic justice today that will not destroy the earth’s capacity to provide abundant life to future generations), remain the basis of the biblical and Reformed imperative to promote social righteousness in economic matters.21 They remain the plumb lines against which economic practices in the 21st century must be judged. They are the product of a way of thinking about God, neighbor, self, and all of creation derived from Reformed beliefs and values that refute many economic assumptions and practices commonly accepted by our society today.”

This document details a Reformed view of the causes of and the responsibilities in the face of poverty.

Additionally, the PCUSA has a site for more specific means of advocacy, and that can be found here.  Highlighted on that site’s home page is a quote from the Confessions, which reads “…A church that is indifferent to poverty, or evades responsibility in economic affairs, or is open to one social class only… makes a mockery of reconciliation and offers no acceptable worship to God…”

House Members: Martha Roby (R-AL), John Campbell (R-CA), Jeff Denhham (R-CA), Diana DeGette (D-CO), Jime Himes (D-CT), Kathy Castor (D-FL), Dennis Ross (R-FL), Tom Price (R-GA), Luke Messer (R-IN), Bruce Braley (D-IA), Mike Pompeo (R-KS), Candice S. Miller (R-MI), Jo Ann Emerson (R-MO), Billy Long (R-MO), Steve Daines (R-MT), Carolyn B. Maloney (D-NY), Howard Coble (R-NC), Melvin Watt (D-NC), Charlie Dent (R-PA), Joe Wilson (R-SC), Marsha Blackburn (TN), John J. “Jimmy” Duncan Jr (R-TN), William M. “Mac” Thornberry (R-TX), Robert Hurt (R-VA), Frank R. Wolf (R-VA), Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV), Nick J. Rahall II (D-WV)

Senate Members: Richard C. Shelby (R-AL), Thomas R. Carper (D-DE), Chris Coons (D-DE), Bill Nelson (D-FL), Mark Steven Kirk (R-IL), Dan Coats (R-IN), Rand Paul (R-KY), Deb Fischer (R-NE), Kay Hagan (D-NC), James M Inhofe (R-OK), Lamar Alexander (R-TN), Bob Corker (R-TN), Mark Warner (D-VA), John D. Rockefeller IV (D-WV), John Barrasso (R-WY), Michael B. Enzi (R-WY)

QUAKERS/FRIENDS: No official statement, but a long-standing history of working with those in poverty.

House Member: Rush D. Holt (D-NJ)

ROMAN CATHOLICS: Statements, CoP

The US Conference of Roman Catholic Bishops has an ardent history of advocating for the well-being of the poor, even writing letters to Roman Catholic politicians whom they believe are straying from the Roman Catholic commitment to protect all life.  Below are just a few links to demonstrate the denomination’s historical advocacy for the poor:

Recently, this letter to Representatives and Senators received much publicity, heightened because Speaker John Boehner is Roman Catholic.  An excerpt is here:

“As Catholic bishops, we have tried to remind Congress that these choices are economic, political, and moral. We offer the following moral criteria to guide difficult budgetary choices:

1. Every budget decision should be assessed by whether it protects or threatens human life and dignity.
2. A central moral measure of any budget proposal is how it affects “the least of these” (Matthew 25). The needs of those who are hungry and homeless, without work or in poverty should come first.
3. Government and other institutions have a shared responsibility to promote the common good of all,especially ordinary workers and families who struggle to live in dignity in difficult economic times.

As you craft and debate a budget resolution and spending bills for Fiscal Year 2013, we hope these criteria will shape your choices. They will guide our assessment of the various proposals. We join with other Christian leaders in calling for a “circle of protection” around our brothers and sisters at home and abroad who are poor and vulnerable.

The Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church teaches: “Just, efficient and effective public financing will … encourage employment growth, … sustain business and non-profit activities” and help guarantee “systems of social insurance and protection that are designed above all to protect the weakest members of society.” We do not offer a detailed critique of entire budget proposals, but we ask you to consider the human and moral dimensions of these choices.

Our nation has an obligation to address the impact of future deficits on the health of the economy, to ensure stability and security for future generations, and to use limited resources efficiently and effectively. A just framework for future budgets cannot rely on disproportionate cuts in essential services to poor persons; it requires shared sacrifice by all, including raising adequate revenues, eliminating unnecessary military and other spending, and addressing the long-term costs of health insurance and retirement programs fairly.”

Here and here are pages dedicated to information about and advocacy in response to poverty.

House Members: Paul Gosar (R-AZ), Raul M. Grijalva (D-AZ), Ann Kirkpatric (D-AZ), Ed Pastor (D-AZ), David Schweikert (R-AZ), Xavier Becerra (D-CA), Paul Cook (R-CA), Jim Costa (D-CA), Anna G. Eshoo (D-CA), Gloria Negrete McLeod (D-CA), Jerry McNerney (D-CA), George Miller (D-CA), Grace F. Napolitano, D-CA), Devin Nunes (R-CA), Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), Lucille Roybal-Allard (D-CA), Ed Royce (R-CA), Linda T. Sanchez (D-CA), Loretta Sanchez (D-CA), Jackie Speier (D-CA), Mike Thompson (D-CA), David Valadao (R-CA), Juan C. Vargas (D-CA), Joe Courtney (D-CT), Rosa DeLauro (D-CT), John B. Larson (D-CT), John Carney (D-DE), Ron DeSantis (R-FL), Mario Diaz-Balart (R-FL), Joe Garcia (D-FL), Trey Radel (R-FL), Tom Rooney (R-FL), Ted Yoho (R-FL), Phil Gingrey (R-GA), Cheri Bustos (D-IL), Rodney Davis (R-IL), Luis Gutierrez (D-IL), Daniel Lipinski (D-IL), Mike Quigley (D-IL), Susan W. Brooks (R-IN), Todd Rokita (R-IN), Peter J. Visciosky (D-IN), Steve King (R-IA), Tim Huelskamp (R-KS), Steve Scalise (R-LA), Michael H. Michaud (D-ME), John Delaney (D-MD), Andy Harris (R-MD), Michael E. Capuano (D-MA), William Keating (D-MA), Joseph P. Kennedy III (D-MA), Stephen F. Lynch (D-MA), Edward J. Markey (D-MA), Jim McGovern (D-MA), Richard E. Neal (D-MA), Dan Benishek (R-MI), Kerry Bentivolio (R-MI), Dave Camp (R-MI), John D. Dingell (D-MI), Dan Kildee (D-MI), Betty McCollum (D-MN), Rick Nolan (D-MN), Steven M. Palazzo (R-MS), William Lacy Clay (D-MO), Blaine Luetkemeyer (R-MO), Ann Wagner (R-MO), Jeff Fortenberry (R-NE), Joe Heck (R-NV), Carol Shea-Porter (D-NH), Leonard Lance (R-NJ), Frank A. LoBiondo (R-NJ), Frank Pallone Jr. (D-NJ), Bill Pascrell Jr. (D-NJ), Jon Runyan (R-NJ), Albio Sires (D-NJ), Christopher H. Smith (R-NJ), Michelle Lujan Grisham (D-NM), Ben Ray Lujan (D-NM), Timothy H. Bishop (D-NY), Chris Collins (R-NY), Joseph Crowley (D-NY), Chris Gibson (R0NY), Michael G. Grimm (R-NY), Richard Hanna (R-NY), Brian Higgins (D-NY), Peter T. King (R-NY), Dan Maffei (D-NY), Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY), Bill Owens (D-NY), Charles B. Rangel (D-NY), Tom Reed (R-NY), Jose E. Serrano (D-NY), Paul Tonko (D-NY), Nydia M. Velazquez (D-NY), Renee Ellmers (R-NC), Virginia Foxx (R-NC), Walter B. Jones (NC), Patrick T. McHenry (R-NC), John Boehner (R-OH), Steve Chabot (R-OH), David Joyce (R-OH), Marcy Kaptur (D-OH), Bob Latta (R-OH), James B. Renacci (R-OH), Tim Ryan (D-OH), Pat Tiberi (R-OH), Brad Wenstrup (R-OH), Peter A. DeFazio (D-OR), Lou Barletta (R-PA), Matt Cartwright (D-PA), Mike Doyle (D-PA), Michael G. Fitzpatrick (R-PA), Mike Kelly (R-PA), Tom Marino (R-PA), Patrick Meehan (R-PA), Tim Murphy (R-PA), Keith Rothfus (R-PA), Jim Langevin (D-RI), Mick Mulvaney (R-SC), Chuck Fleischmann (R-TN), Kevin Brady (R-TX), Joaquin Castro (D-TX), Henry Cuellar (D-TX), Pete Gallego (D-TX), Ruben Jinojosa (D-TX), Michael McCaul (R-TX), Beto O’Rourke (D-TX), Filemon Vela (D-TX), Peter Welch (D-VT), Gerald E. Connolly (D-VA), James P. Moran (D-VA), Sean P. Duffy (R-WI), Paul D. Ryan (R-WI)

Senate Members: Mark Begich (D-AK), Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), Marco Rubio (R-FL), Jim Risch (R-ID), Richard J. Durbin (D-IL), Joe Donnelly (D-IN), Tom Harkin (D-IA), Mary L. Landrieu (D-LA), David Vitter (R-LA), Susan Collins (R-ME), Barbara A. Mikulski (D-MD), John Kerry (D-MA), Claire McCaskill (D-MO), Kelly Ayotte (R-NH), Robert Menendez (D-NJ), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), Heidi Heitkamp (D-ND), John Hoeven (R-ND), Bob Casey (D-PA), Patrick J. Toomey (R-PA), Jack Reed (D-RI), Patrick J. Leahy (D-VT), Tim Kaine (D-VA), Maria Vantwell (D-WA), Patty Murray (D-WA), Joe Manchin III (D-WV)

SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTISTS: Statement, CoP

While there doesn’t appear to be a statement encouraging specific forms of action or governmental advocacy, there are statements speaking about the commitment to tend to the poor and hungry both domestically and globally.

“Social scientists tell us that a number of ills find fertile ground in the conditions of poverty. Feelings of hopelessness, alienation, envy and resentment often lead to antisocial attitudes and behavior. Then society is left to pay for the after-effects of such ills through its courts, prisons, and welfare systems. Poverty and misfortune as such do not cause crime and provide no excuse for it. But when the claims of compassion are denied, discouragement, and even resentment are likely to follow.

The claims upon the Christian’s compassion are not ill-founded. They do not spring from any legal or even social contract theory, but from the clear teaching of scripture: “He has showed you, O man, what is good: and what does the Lord require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?” (Micah 7:8 RSV)

The fifty-eighth chapter of Isaiah is precious to Seventh-day Adventists. We see our responsibility in this chapter as those raised up to be “The repairer of the breach, the restorer of paths to dwell in” (verse 12).

The call is to restore and “to loose the bands of wickedness … to deal thy bread to the hungry … bring the poor that are cast out to thy house … when thou seest the naked, that thou cover him” (verses 6, 7). So as repairers of the breach, we are to restore and care for the poor. If we carry out the principles of the law of God in acts of mercy and love, we will represent the character of God to the world.”

House Members: Raul Ruiz (D-CA), Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX)

UNITARIANS: Statements

The Unitarians have a tradition of advocacy on behalf of the poor, but seems to focus most of it by way of workers’ rights.  Further efforts can be linked to here.

House Members: Ami Bera (D-CA)

UNITED BRETHREN: Statement

Here, the United Brethren have a brief statement under the rubric of Human Relations, which speaks to their hope for economic parity.

“The church respects human personality which is inherent in every race, nation and creed. We believe in the Bible’s instruction that there is no basis whatsoever for a belief in the superiority or inferiority of any people. Therefore, the church protests against any action or practice that produces discrimination based upon racial, national, creedal or social differences, since God “made from one, every nation of men to live on the face of the earth” (Acts 17:26). The church admonishes all members to commit their attitudes, actions and influences in faithful witness to this truth and to oppose every influence, whether it be economic, social, moral or religious which would debase, impair, or bring into bondage those whom God has created in his own likeness.

The church believes that there must be equal rights and justice for all. All members should register their concern and opposition to any form of prejudice that would prevent any individual or ethnic group from free and full participation in the privileges and benefits of our society. We advocate through due process of law and within the framework of the democratic system the elimination of poverty; the abolishment of unemployment; a fair wage in very vocation; fair practices between employer and employees; adequate provisions for the aged and for those who are unemployable; the opportunity for decent housing for all; and a proper concern for total human need in our contemporary world.”

House Member: Scott Perry (R-PA)

UNITED CHURCH OF GOD: No official statement

Senate Member: Joe Tester (D-MT)

NON-DENOMINATIONAL OR CHRISTIANS WITH NO STATED DENOMINATIONAL AFFILIATION:

Representatives: Mo Brooks (R-AL); Ken Calvert (R-CA), Tony Cardenas (D-CA), John Garamendi (D-CA), Michael M. Honda (D-CA), Doug LaMalfa (R-CA), Gary G. Miller (R-CA), Eric Swalwell (D-CA), Maxine Waters (D-CA), Doug Lamborn (R-CO), Ed Perlmutter (D-CO), Randy Hultgren (R-IL), Adam Kinzinger (R-IL), Jackie Walorski (R-IN), Todd Young (R-IN), Bill Cassidy (R-LA), Tim Walberg (R-MI), Michele Bachmann (R-MN), Mark Amodei (R-NV), Scott Garrett (R-NJ), Grace Meng (D-NY), Mark Meadows (R-NC), Robert Pittenger (R-NC), Kevin Cramer (R-ND), Bill Johnson (R-OH), Jim Jordan (R-OH), Michael R. Turner [Presbyterian?] (R-OH), Earl Blumenauer (D-OR), Jim Gerlach (R-PA), Joe Pitts (R-PA), Kristi Noem (R-SD), Scott Rigell (R-VA), Jaime Herrera Beutler (R-WA), Doc Hastings [Presbyterian?] (R-WA), Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA)

Senators: Mark Pryor (D-AK), Christopher S. Murphy (D-CT), Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH)

NO RELIGIOUS IDENTIFICATION:

Representatives: Kyrsten Sinema (D-AZ), Judy Chu (D-CA), Jared Huffman (D-CA), Bill Foster (D-IL), Adrian Smith (R-NE), Mark Pocan (D-WI)

Senators: Michael Bennet (D-CO). Mark Udall (D-CO), Tammy Baldwin (D-WI)

OTHER:

Representatives: Tammy Duckworth [Deist] (D-IL), Suzanne Bonamici [raised Episcopalian and Unitarian, goes to Synagogue with husband and children] (D-OR)

_____________________________

The following are additional resources, pan-religious resources, that are worthy of a click or several.:

“Jubilee Debt Campaign Multifaith is a unique UK project raising awareness within faith communities to tackle the issue of International Debt and global poverty.”

Bread for the World “is a collective Christian voice urging our nation’s decision makers to end hunger at home and abroad. By changing policies, programs and conditions that allow hunger and poverty to persist, we provide help and opportunity far beyond the communities where we live.”

Christian Churches Together, an interdenominational group, established a Domestic Poverty Initiative which provides collaborate resources for many denominations to fight poverty.

As Christians, we believe the moral measure of the debate is how the most poor and vulnerable people fare. We look at every budget proposal from the bottom up—how it treats those Jesus called “the least of these” (Matthew 25:45). They do not have powerful lobbies, but they have the most compelling claim on our consciences and common resources. The Christian community has an obligation to help them be heard, to join with others to insist that programs that serve the most vulnerable in our nation and around the world are protected. We know from our experience serving hungry and homeless people that these programs meet basic human needs and protect the lives and dignity of the most vulnerable. We believe that God is calling us to pray, fast, give alms and to speak out for justice.

As Christian leaders, we are committed to fiscal responsibility and shared sacrifice. We are also committed to resist budget cuts that undermine the lives, dignity, and rights of poor and vulnerable people. Therefore, we join with others to form a Circle of Protection around programs that meet the essential needs of hungry and poor people at home and abroad.

1. The nation needs to substantially reduce future deficits, but not at the expense of hungry and poor people.
2. Funding focused on reducing poverty should not be cut. It should be made as effective as possible, but not cut.
3. We urge our leaders to protect and improve poverty-focused development and humanitarian assistance to promote a better, safer world.
4. National leaders must review and consider tax revenues, military spending, and entitlements in the search for ways to share sacrifice and cut deficits.
5. A fundamental task is to create jobs and spur economic growth. Decent jobs at decent wages are the best path out of poverty, and restoring growth is a powerful way to reduce deficits.
6. The budget debate has a central moral dimension. Christians are asking how we protect “the least of these.” “What would Jesus cut?” “How do we share sacrifice?”
7. As believers, we turn to God with prayer and fasting, to ask for guidance as our nation makes decisions about our priorities as a people.
8. God continues to shower our nation and the world with blessings. As Christians, we are rooted in the love of God in Jesus Christ. Our task is to share these blessings with love and justice and with a special priority for those who are poor.

Budgets are moral documents, and how we reduce future deficits are historic and defining moral choices. As Christian leaders, we urge Congress and the administration to give moral priority to programs that protect the life and dignity of poor and vulnerable people in these difficult times, our broken economy, and our wounded world. It is the vocation and obligation of the church to speak and act on behalf of those Jesus called “the least of these.” This is our calling, and we will strive to be faithful in carrying out this mission.

Budgets are moral documents, and how we reduce future deficits are historic and defining moral choices. As Christian leaders, we urge Congress and the administration to give moral priority to programs that protect the life and dignity of poor and vulnerable people in these difficult times, our broken economy, and our wounded world. It is the vocation and obligation of the church to speak and act on behalf of those Jesus called “the least of these.” This is our calling, and we will strive to be faithful in carrying out this mission.

Dr. Aidsand F. Wright-Riggins III, Executive Director, American Baptist Home Mission Societies

Clearly, that event changed us as a nation, and changed the tenor and the immediacy of the conversation about gun control.

My recent blog about the terrible shooting received more hits than any blog I’ve written, clocking up hits by the minute and conversations on far-flung Facebook pages.

In it, I made a passing reference to a few denominations and their official statements in support of gun control.

Wow, did that surprise people.

In fact, many people were surprised that denominations have positions on any given public, social, or political matter.

In light of that, it dawned on me that a review of various official religious “policy” statements could make for an interesting set of OMG blogs.

And so I’m plunging in to do just that.

I think it’s helpful for people, both in and out of faiths, and in and out of politics, to learn that many religious faiths advocate for certain social and political agendas based precisely on their religious commitments.

They don’t all land in the same place, however, although it is interesting to see where the clear gravitational pull is: it’s often not where many will expect.

Aware of these statements, it then makes for interesting conversation about whether people think that these statements do and/or should make any difference at all.

Should religious groups advocate for political issues?  Can religious groups speak comprehensively for the whole body?  Is it irresponsible not to speak out, if an issue clashes with fundamental religious beliefs? For Christians, Jesus’ actions were nothing if not social–what effect does that or should that have on the politics of today? What if some members of the faith disagree with the group’s statements?  How should members be influenced by the official views of their religious organization?

And then one more twist:

I think it’s relevant to list the religious affiliations, in so far as they are available, of members of the next US Congress.

And so I’m curious about when and why and whether politicians draw upon their religion.

There are fundamental theological differences between, say, Roman Catholics and Congregationalists and Baptists.  If people of faith listen carefully to those differences, they can’t help but be nudged/pushed toward certain political tendencies.

Or can they?

Each religious affiliation has been self-offered by the politician, which suggests that there is some commitment to the theology of each group.  I gathered the information from Project Vote Smart, a respected volunteer group which helped me considerably; from this list from the Pew Forum and CQ Roll Call; and, when I had a hunch that more specific information than just “Christian” or “Protestant” might be available, I gleaned further specifics from various publicly available interviews online.

It makes for an interesting study to see how well political biases line up with purported religious ones.

Since gun control is, for terrible reasons, again on the forefront of our minds, we will start with it.

I’ll list religious grouping headings (where there are different “flavors” with the same heading, like with Jews and Lutherans, I will have sub-headings under each grouping), then a quick description of each tradition’s stance on gun control (if found).  I’ll then offer a few links to their statements and brief excerpts of the relevant texts.

Keep in mind, I have only listed the official stances as I’ve found them. Within each community, you can be sure that there are a variety of active organizations and voices which disagree with official denominational stances.

I would be so glad for reader responses here.

There’s much to discuss, and I’m eager to see where the comments will take us.

If there are any further links, clarifications, additions, or corrections, I will happily update the blog with them.  It was a big project and so I fear and yet am sure that there will be a few blips.

So, here goes, in alphabetical order:

AFRICAN METHODIST EPISCOPAL: For Gun Control:

http://www.ame-sac.com/ame_aurora_shooting.pdf

“We have heard the retort of the gun lobby that guns don’t kill people, but guns are in the hands of people. Gun laws have become so lax that it is easier to get a gun than it is to get a driver’s license. Often individuals can get as many guns as they want with very lax if any background checks. ‘The African Methodist Episcopal Church does not question the right to bear arms, but we also believe that there must be some checks and balances to ensure that guns are not in the hands of persons who are a danger to themselves and others’, adds Bishop John Richard Bryant, Senior Bishop.

The African Methodist Episcopal Church calls upon the candidates of both parties to lay before the nation their position as it relates to passing again the Assault Weapons Ban, and other gun control measures, and we call upon the Congress and state governors and legislatures to act in a bipartisan manner on gun control. ‘We also call upon other church communions, civic groups and national organizations to join with Faiths United Against Gun Violence in speaking out and acting on this issue,’ concludes the Social Action Director, Jacquelyn Dupont-Walker.”

House Members: Terri A. Sewell (D-AL), Alcee L. Hastings (D-FL), Gregory W. Meeks (D-NY), James E. Clyburn (D-SC), Yvette D. Clarke (D-NY)

ANGLICAN CATHOLICS: No official statement

House Member: F. James Sensenbrenner Jr. (R-WI)

BAPTISTS:

Baptists are extremely congregational, and so finding a unified official statement is not easy.  That said, in 2002, Richard Land, the director of the SBC’s “Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission” asserted that US citizens have the right to arms.

On December 19, 2012 he reiterated this conviction in an NPR interview, days after Newtown.

House Members: Robert B. Aderholt (R-AL), Spencer Bachus (R-AL), Mike D. Rogers (R-Baptist), Trent Franks (R-AZ), Rick Crawford (R-AR), Tim Griffin (R-AR), Steve Womack (R-AR), Karen Bass (D-CA), Duncan Hunter (R-CA), Barbara Lee (D-CA), Kevin McCarthy (R-CA), Tom McClintock (R-CA), Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA), Corrine Brown (D-FL), Vern Buchanan (R-FL), Steve Southerland II (R-FL), Daniel Webster (R-FL), John Barrow (D-GA), Sanford D. Bishop Jr (D-GA), Paul Broun (R-GA), Doug Collins (R-FL), Tom Graves (R-GA), John Lewis (D-GA), Austin Scott (R-GA), David Scott (D-GA), Lynn Westmoreland (R-GA), Danny K. Davis (D-IL), Bobby L. Rush (D-IL),  Aaron Schock (R-IL), Martin Stutzman (R-IN), Harold Rogers (R-KY), Rodney Alexander (R-LA), John Fleming (R-LA),Cedric L. Richmond (D-LA), Elijah Cummings (D-MD), Donna Edwards (D-MD), Steny H. Hoyer (D-MD), John Conyers Jr. (D-MI), Gregg Harper (R-MS), Alan Nunnelee (R-MS), Sam Graves (R-MO),Steven Horsford (D-NV), Donald M. Payne Jr (D-NJ), Steve Pearce (R-NM), Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY), G.K. Butterfield (D-NC), George E.B. Holding (R-NC), David E. Price (D-NC), Joyce Beatty (D-OH), Marcia L. Fudge (D-OH),  Jim Bridenstine (R-OK), James Lankford (R-OK), Frank D. Lucas (R-OK), Chaka Fattah (D-PA), Jeff Duncan (R-SC), Trey Gowdy (R-SC), K. Michael Conaway (R-TX), Bill Flores (R-TX), Louie Gohmert (R-TX), Al Green (D-TX), Eddie Bernice Johnson (R-TX), Randy Neugebauer (R_TX), Steve Stockman (R-TX), Marc Veasey (D-TX), Randy Weber (R-TX), J. Randy Forbes (R-VA), Gwen Moore (D-WI), Reid Ribble (R-WI).

Senate Members: John Boozman (R-AR), Charles E. Grassley (R-IA), Mitch McConnell (R-KY), Thad Cochran (R-MS), Roger Wicker (R-MS), Roy Blount (R-MS), Tom Coburn (R-OK), Lindsey Graham (R-SC), John Thune (R-SD), Ted Cruz (R-TX)

BUDDHISTS: Forgive me, but, maybe.

While they certainly encourage peace and non-violence, they also would say that guns don’t kill, but people do.  No official statement.

House Members: Hank Johnson (D-GA), Colleen Hanabusa (D-HI)

Senate Member: Mazie K Hirono (D-HI)

CHRISTIAN REFORMED: No official statement

House Member: Bill Huizenga (R-MI)

CHRISTIAN SCIENCE: No official statement

House Member: Lamar Smith (R-TX), Robert W. Goodlatte (R-VA),

CHURCH OF CHRIST: No official statement

House Member: Janice Hahn (D-CA), Brett Guthrie (R-KY), Ted Poe (R-TX)

Senate Member: John Cornyn (R-TX)

CONGREGATIONALISTS/UNITED CHURCH OF CHRIST: For Gun Control

http://act.ucc.org/site/DocServer/GS-25-minutes-resolution-in-Our-Society-and-World.pdf?docID=1101&JServSessionIdr004=c2rde16793.app332a

“Resolved: To pursue legislation in the United States’ Congress, State Legislatures, and the United Nations that will help diminish the acceptance of violence in any form and restrict the availability of instruments of violence using every means possible to advise our leaders and the leaders of the world that the violence must stop.”

House Member: Elizabeth Esty (D-CT), Bill Enyart (D-IL), Fred Upton (R-MI)

Senate Member: Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), Max Baucus (D-MT),

EPISCOPALIANS/ANGLICANS:

My email to the headquarters, asking whether there is a denomination-wide policy, has not yet been answered.  However, at least one diocese, the New York Diocese, has written a statement for gun control.

http://www.dioceseny.org/pages/328

“Taking note of the number of ‘gun-inflicted killings’ and the ‘impossibility of relying on local gun control laws’ given the flow of handguns across state lines, Convention in 1975 called upon Congress ‘to enact legislation to control the manufacture, importation, sale, interstate and intrastate shipment, ownership, possession, registration, and use of all guns, parts and ammunition.’ In 1996 Convention affirmed and supported ‘the continued ban on sales and importation of assault weapons, parts, and ammunition.’”

On Dec. 22, 2012, Rowan Williams, head of the Anglican Communion, did issue a statement supporting stricter US gun laws.

House Members: Jo Bonner (R-AL), Don Young (R-AK), Julia Brownley (D-CA), Sam Farr (D-CA), Scott Tipton (R-CO), Ander Crenshaw (R-FL), John Mica (R-FL), Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL), Frederica S. Wilson (D-FL), Jack Kingston (R-GA), Peter Roskam (R-IL), Garland “Andy” Barr IV (R-KY), Chris Van Hollen (D-MD), Niki Tsongas (D-MA), Gary Peters (D-MI), Ann McLane Kuster (D-NH), Robert E. Andrews (D-NJ), Rodney Frelinghuysen (R-NJ), Louise M. Slaughter (D-NY), Kurt Schrader (D-OR), Greg Walden (R-OR), Tom Rice (R-SC), Jim Cooper (D-TN), Scott DesJarlais (R-TN), Michael C. Burgess (R-TX), Blake Farenthold (R-TX), Jeb Hensarling (R-TX), Morgan Griffith (R-VA), Robert C. Scott (D-VA), Rob Wittman (R-VA), Suzan DelBene (D-WI), Jim McDermott (D-WA), Adam Smith (D-WA), David B. McKinley (R-WV)

Senate Members: John McCain (R-AZ), Saxby Cambliss (R-GA), Angus King (I-ME), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI)

HINDUS: No centralized body.

This article captures the tension: http://vajrin.wordpress.com/2012/12/15/a-hindu-view-on-gun-rights/

House Member: Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI)

JEWS:

REFORMED JEWS: For Gun Control:

In 1972, they reaffirmed a statement from 1968 which urgently called for gun control.

http://urj.org//about/union/governance/reso//?syspage=article&item_id=2204

“…education and legislation at the national, state, and local levels that would limit and control the sale and use of firearms, easy access to which is a major factor in crimes of violence. We oppose efforts of “gun lobbies” that repeatedly have thwarted the passage of effective legislation and we pledge our support to those who are working for responsible control of this deadly traffic.”

ORTHODOX JEWS: For Gun Control:

http://www.ouradio.org/images/uploads/Summary.pdf

“We endorse common sense gun regulation including banning of certain sophisticated attack weapons, and continue to support meaningful gun control efforts.”

PAN-JEWISH ORGANIZATIONS have made more recent and more explicit statements endorsing gun control.

B’NAI B’RITH: For Gun Control

http://www.bnaibrith.org/5/post/2012/12/bnai-brith-calls-for-reinstatement-of-assault-weapons-ban1.html

“B’nai B’rith calls for the reinstatement of the assault weapons ban, which went into effect in 1994, but was not renewed when it expired a decade later. At the time, 1,100 police chiefs and sheriffs from across the country urged the law be renewed and strengthened. Other meaningful, enforceable gun control measures are also needed.”

THE JEWISH COUNCILE FOR PUBLIC AFFAIRS: For Gun Control

This link comes from the Jewish Council for Public Affairs states:

“The JCPA has created a petition expressing our community’s pain and our resolve to enact comprehensive reform, including meaningful legislation to limit access to assault weapons and ensure access to quality mental health care for all who need it.”

This article from the Jerusalem Post surveys the Pan-Jewish political responses.

House Members: Susan A. Davis (D-CA), Alan Lowenthal (D-CA), Adam B. Schiff (D-CA), Brad Sherman (D-CA), Henry Waxman (D-CA), Jared Polis (D-CO), Ted Deutsch (D-FL), Lois Frankel (D-FL), Alan Grayson (D-FL), Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL), Jan Schakowsky (D-IL), Brad Schneider (D-IL), John Yarmuth (D-KY), Sander M. Levin (D-MI), Eliot L. Engel (D-NY), Steve Israel (D-NY), Nita M. Lowey (D-NY), Jarrold Nadler (D-NY), Allyson Y. Schwartz (D-PA), David Cicilline (D-RI), Steve Cohen (D-TN), Eric Cantor (R-VA)

Senate Members: Barbara Boxer (D-CA), Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), Brian Schatz (D-HI), Benjamin L. Cardin (D-MY), Carl Levin (D-MI), Al Franken (D-MN), Frank R. Lautenberg (D-NJ), Charles E. Schumer (D-NY), Ron Wyden (D-OR), Bernie Sanders (I-VT)

LUTHERANS:

EVANGELICAL LUTHERAN CHURCH IN AMERICA: For Gun Control

1993 Resolution

http://www.elca.org/What-We-Believe/Social-Issues/Resolutions/1993/CA93,-p-,06,-p-,10-Community-Violence-Gun-Control.aspx

“To communicate to Congress and the President of the United States the urgent concern of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America regarding the violence associated with the widespread availability of handguns and military assault weapons and [regarding] our support for the Brady Bill and other controls over the manufacture, sale, and private ownership of handguns and military assault weapons…”

1994 Churchwide Assembly Resolution

http://www.elca.org/What-We-Believe/Social-Issues/Messages/Community-Violence.aspx

“To communicate to Congress and the President of the United States the urgent concern of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America regarding the violence associated with the widespread availability of handguns and military assault weapons and [regarding] our support for the Brady Bill and other controls over the manufacture, sale, and private ownership of handguns and military assault weapons;

To call upon all of our congregations, synods, and appropriate agencies to work for the passage and strict enforcement of local, state, and national legislation as appropriate, that rigidly controls the manufacture, importation, exportation, sale, purchase, transfer, receipt, possession or transportation of handguns, assault weapons, and assault-like weapons and their parts, excluding rifles and shotguns used for hunting and sporting purposes, for use other than law enforcement and military purposes”

House Members: Lois Capps (D-CA), Zoe Lofgren (D-CA), Tom Letham (R-IA), Chellie Pingree (D-ME), Collin C. Peterson (D-MN), Tim Walz (D-MN), Bill Shuster (R-PA), Diane Black (R-TN), John Carter (R-TX), Tom Petri (R-WI), Denny Heck, D-WA

Senate Members: Martin Heinrich (D-NM), Sherrod Brown (D-OH), Jeff Merkley (D-OR), Tim Johnson (D-SD)

MISSOURI SYNOD: No available statement

House Members: Cory Gardner (R-CO), John Shimkus (R-IL), Larry Buschon (R-IN), Erik Paulsen (R-MN), Dave Reichert (R-WA), Cynthia M. Lummis (R-WY)

WISCONSIN SYNOD: No available statement

House Member: Ron Kind (D-WI)

Senate Member: Ron Johnson (R-WI)

MENNONITES: No official statement, but a long history of pacifism

METHODIST: For Gun Control

Revised and Re-adopted Resolution (2008)

http://www.umc.org/site/apps/nlnet/content2.aspx?c=lwL4KnN1LtH&b=4951419&ct=6869501

“5. Support federal legislation in the US Congress to regulate the importation, manufacturing, sale, and possession of guns and ammunition by the general public. Such legislation should include provisions for the registration and licensing of gun purchasers and owners, appropriate background investigation and waiting periods prior to gun purchase, and regulation of subsequent sale…”

House Members: Tom Cotton (R-AR), Doris Matsui (D-CA), Mark Takano (D-CA), Mike Coffman (R-CO), Jeff Miller (R-FL), Rich Nugent (R-FL), Bill Posey (R-FL), C.W. Bill Young (R-FL), Rob Woodall (R-GA), Dave Loebsack (D-IA), Lynn Jenkins (R-KS), Kevin Yoder (R-KS), Thomas Massie (R-KY), Edward Whifield (R-KY), C.A. Dutch Ruppersberger (D-MD), Mike Rogers (R-MI), John Kline (R-MN), Bennie Thompson (D-MO), Emanuel Cleaver II (D-MO), Lee Terry (R-NE), Richard Judson (R-NC), Bob Gibbs (R-OH), Steve Stivers (R-OH), Tom Cole (R-OK), Stephen Fincher (R-TN), Phil Roe (R-TN), Joe L. Barton (R-TX), John Culberson (R-TX), Lloyd Doggett (D-TX), Kay Granger (R-TX), Gene Green (D-TX), Ralph M. Hall (R-TX), Sam Johnson (R-TX), Pete Olson (R-TX), Pete Sessions (R-TX), Derek Kilmer (D-WA), Rick Larsen (D-WA)

Senate Members: Jeff Sessions (R-AL), Johnny Isakson (R-GA), Jerry Moran (R-KS), Pat Roberts (R-KS), Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), Debbie Stabenow (D-MI), Richard Burr (R-NC), Rob Portman (R-OH)

MORMONS: No Official Statement

However, recently, Mayor Bloomberg discovered that “The Mormon Church owns one of the most active and unregulated gun sale portals on the web, according to a national investigation released by the New York City Mayor’s office.”

http://www.buzzfeed.com/mckaycoppins/bloomberg-report-takes-aim-at-mormon-church-for-on

House Members: Matt Salmon (R-AZ), Howard P. “Buck” McKeon (R-CA), Raul R. Labrador (R-ID), Mike Simpson (R-ID), Rob Bishop (R-UT), Jason Chaffetz (R-UT), Jim Matheson (D-UT), Chris Stewart (R-UT)

Senate Members: Jeff Flake (R-AZ), Michael D. Crapo (R-ID), Dean Heller (R-NV), Harry Reid (D-NV), Tom Udall (D-NM), Orrin Hatch (R-UT), Mike Lee (R-UT)

MUSLIMS: In response to the Trayvon Martin shooting, the Islamic Society of North America has issued a statement for gun control, and signed a letter to Harry Reid from a group called “Faiths United against Gun Violence:”

“On behalf of Faiths United to Prevent Gun Violence and our 36 national member organizations (see attached list), I write to express our strong opposition to S. 2188 and S. 2213. This dangerous legislation, which some have referred to as the “George Zimmerman Armed Vigilante Act,” would force states to let Trayvon Martin’s shooter, George Zimmerman, and thousands of other concealed carriers like him, carry loaded hidden handguns from Times Square to Topeka, from Maine to California. It would allow tens of thousands of concealed carry permit holders, such as those with violent backgrounds similar to Zimmerman’s, take their guns and their “shoot first, ask questions later” mentality just about anywhere they go.

Allowing armed and dangerous people to legally carry loaded and hidden handguns across state lines is not our vision of America. This law would make this a terrifying reality, even if your state has tougher, more sensible laws that would prevent someone like Trayvon Martin’s killer — who had an arrest record and a violent past — from getting a concealed carry permit.

The faith community is standing up and flatly rejecting the gun lobby’s vision of America.  It is time we replace it with a vision shared by many of us throughout the nation — a vision of an America where young people can go out to buy a pack of Skittles and a soft drink in safety.”

Additionally, I received this information from the ISNA:

“…we join Faith United and the CSGV [Coalition to Stop Gun Violence] in calling on Congress and the President to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous criminals and those with serious mental illness by closing gaps in the background check system, including requiring criminal background checks for all gun sales.  Currently, 40% of gun sales occur without a criminal background check, and 74% of  members of the National Rifle Association agree that criminal background checks should be required for every gun purchase.  We also ask that federal policies enhance law enforcement’s ability to combat the flow of illegal guns into our communities and enforce existing gun laws.

We have signed onto Statements of Principles for both Faiths United to Prevent Gun Violence and the Campaign to Stop Gun Violence.  Both call for the following measures to be taken, among others:

• Keeping guns out of the hands of dangerous criminals and those with serious mental illness by closing gaps in the background check system, including requiring criminal background checks for all gun sales.
• Supporting policies that enhance law enforcement’s ability to combat the flow of illegal guns into our communities and enforce existing gun laws.
• Supporting new technologies to help law enforcement more effectively trace crime guns and supporting development of safety features to childproof guns.
• Urging firearms retailers to implement protocols aimed at preventing “straw purchases” and the sales of firearms to prohibited purchasers.”

House Members: Andre Carson (D-IN), Keith Ellison (D-MN)

CHURCH OF THE NAZARENES: No official statements

House Member: Kenny Marchant (R-TX)

ORTHODOX TRADITIONS: No official Statements, but lean toward opposing gun control:

http://oca.org/questions/society/gun-control

“The Church affirms that which is revealed by God—in this instance, “thou shalt not kill.” In principle, the Church would say that guns are not, in and of themselves, “evil,” even though they can indeed be used for evil purposes, such as willfully shooting one’s classmates in a junior high school or knocking off a rival gang member or murdering one’s spouse because the nagging has pushed one beyond the brink of annoyance.

The bottom line, then, is that one must control how one uses one’s gun, discerning when it is right to use it and when it isn’t.”

House Members: Darrell Issa [Antioch Orthodox Christian Church] (R-CA), Gus Bilirakis [Greek] (R-FL), John Sarbanes [Greek] (D-MD), Justin Amash [Greek] (R-MI), Dina Titus [Greek] (D-NV)

PENTECOSTALS: No official statement

House Member: Markwayne Mullin (R-OK)

PRESBYTERIANS: For Gun Control

1994 Social Message

http://www.pcusa.org/media/uploads/acswp/pdf/gun-violence-policy.pdf

“As we move toward a more comprehensive address of community violence, we join with other religious communities in anti-violence initiatives that:

• offer vital spiritual and moral resources for replacing fear and violence with hope and reconciliation in our homes, communities and nation;
• stem the proliferation of guns in our streets, schools and homes;
• counter the “culture of violence” that pervades our national culture and media;
• build strong anti-violence coalitions in our neighborhoods and communities;
• develop peer mediation skills in the schools; and
• protect our youth from the epidemic of violence through equitable law enforcement, and the promotion of education, social programs, anti-drug programs and real job opportunities.

We also join with others in working through government and with the advertising and media industries to find ways to respect free expression while abhorring and seeing appropriate ways to limit expressions of violence in electronic media and film.”

In the Full Rationale for Gun Violence, Gospel Values: Mobilizing in Response to God’s Call—From the Advisory Committee on Social Witness Policy, it’s written:

“God has provided us with the elements to be agents of change in the world. The change needs to be comprehensive: we need to address the idolatry of guns, the violence that permeates our culture, our obsessions with personal rights over public responsibility, the practices of widespread and indiscriminate sale of military style weapons, as well as the legislation necessary to regulate the accessibility and sale of military weapons disguised as “sporting guns.” We must keep our “eyes on the prize,” of preventing gun violence and the unnecessary deaths and injuries that result. Enough blood has been spilled. We affirm that through good organizational effort, animated by the passion for justice that comes to the people of God through the Holy Spirit, gun violence can be dramatically reduced.

House Members: Martha Roby (R-AL), John Campbell (R-CA), Jeff Denhham (R-CA), Diana DeGette (D-CO), Jime Himes (D-CT), Kathy Castor (D-FL), Dennis Ross (R-FL), Tom Price (R-GA), Luke Messer (R-IN), Bruce Braley (D-IA), Mike Pompeo (R-KS), Candice S. Miller (R-MI), Jo Ann Emerson (R-MO), Billy Long (R-MO), Steve Daines (R-MT), Carolyn B. Maloney (D-NY), Howard Coble (R-NC), Melvin Watt (D-NC), Charlie Dent (R-PA), Joe Wilson (R-SC), Marsha Blackburn (TN), John J. “Jimmy” Duncan Jr (R-TN), William M. “Mac” Thornberry (R-TX), Robert Hurt (R-VA), Frank R. Wolf (R-VA), Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV), Nick J. Rahall II (D-WV)

Senate Members: Richard C. Shelby (R-AL), Thomas R. Carper (D-DE), Chris Coons (D-DE), Bill Nelson (D-FL), Mark Steven Kirk (R-IL), Dan Coats (R-IN), Rand Paul (R-KY), Deb Fischer (R-NE), Kay Hagan (D-NC), James M Inhofe (R-OK), Lamar Alexander (R-TN), Bob Corker (R-TN), Mark Warner (D-VA), John D. Rockefeller IV (D-WV), John Barrasso (R-WY), Michael B. Enzi (R-WY)

QUAKERS/FRIENDS: For Gun Control

Although a specific statement could not be found at the national level, Quakers have a long history of non-violence.  Here is one link on their national site encouraging advocacy for gun control.

House Member: Rush D. Holt (D-NJ)

ROMAN CATHOLICS: For Gun Control

….but that stance is embedded in documents not directly and specifically related to gun violence.

Still, not surprisingly, given their commitment to life, they are perhaps the most clearly opposed to guns, even advocating that “Since such a significant number of violent offenses are committed with handguns and within families, we believe that handguns need to be effectively controlled and eventually eliminated from our society. We acknowledge that controlling the possession of handguns will not eliminate gun violence, but we believe it is an indispensable element of any serious or rational approach to the problem.”

This link points to the relevant documents, and the following also details their opposition to guns:  Responsibility, Rehabilitation, and Restoration: A Catholic Perspective on Crime and Criminal Justice, which states “As bishops, we support measures that control the sale and use of firearms and make them safer (especially efforts that prevent their unsupervised use by children or anyone other than the owner), and we reiterate our call for sensible regulation of handguns.”

House Members: Paul Gosar (R-AZ), Raul M. Grijalva (D-AZ), Ann Kirkpatric (D-AZ), Ed Pastor (D-AZ), David Schweikert (R-AZ), Xavier Becerra (D-CA), Paul Cook (R-CA), Jim Costa (D-CA), Anna G. Eshoo (D-CA), Gloria Negrete McLeod (D-CA), Jerry McNerney (D-CA), George Miller (D-CA), Grace F. Napolitano, D-CA), Devin Nunes (R-CA), Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), Lucille Roybal-Allard (D-CA), Ed Royce (R-CA), Linda T. Sanchez (D-CA), Loretta Sanchez (D-CA), Jackie Speier (D-CA), Mike Thompson (D-CA), David Valadao (R-CA), Juan C. Vargas (D-CA), Joe Courtney (D-CT), Rosa DeLauro (D-CT), John B. Larson (D-CT), John Carney (D-DE), Ron DeSantis (R-FL), Mario Diaz-Balart (R-FL), Joe Garcia (D-FL), Trey Radel (R-FL), Tom Rooney (R-FL), Ted Yoho (R-FL), Phil Gingrey (R-GA), Cheri Bustos (D-IL), Rodney Davis (R-IL), Luis Gutierrez (D-IL), Daniel Lipinski (D-IL), Mike Quigley (D-IL), Susan W. Brooks (R-IN), Todd Rokita (R-IN), Peter J. Visciosky (D-IN), Steve King (R-IA), Tim Huelskamp (R-KS), Steve Scalise (R-LA), Michael H. Michaud (D-ME), John Delaney (D-MD), Andy Harris (R-MD), Michael E. Capuano (D-MA), William Keating (D-MA), Joseph P. Kennedy III (D-MA), Stephen F. Lynch (D-MA), Edward J. Markey (D-MA), Jim McGovern (D-MA), Richard E. Neal (D-MA), Dan Benishek (R-MI), Kerry Bentivolio (R-MI), Dave Camp (R-MI), John D. Dingell (D-MI), Dan Kildee (D-MI), Betty McCollum (D-MN), Rick Nolan (D-MN), Steven M. Palazzo (R-MS), William Lacy Clay (D-MO), Blaine Luetkemeyer (R-MO), Ann Wagner (R-MO), Jeff Fortenberry (R-NE), Joe Heck (R-NV), Carol Shea-Porter (D-NH), Leonard Lance (R-NJ), Frank A. LoBiondo (R-NJ), Frank Pallone Jr. (D-NJ), Bill Pascrell Jr. (D-NJ), Jon Runyan (R-NJ), Albio Sires (D-NJ), Christopher H. Smith (R-NJ), Michelle Lujan Grisham (D-NM), Ben Ray Lujan (D-NM), Timothy H. Bishop (D-NY), Chris Collins (R-NY), Joseph Crowley (D-NY), Chris Gibson (R0NY), Michael G. Grimm (R-NY), Richard Hanna (R-NY), Brian Higgins (D-NY), Peter T. King (R-NY), Dan Maffei (D-NY), Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY), Bill Owens (D-NY), Charles B. Rangel (D-NY), Tom Reed (R-NY), Jose E. Serrano (D-NY), Paul Tonko (D-NY), Nydia M. Velazquez (D-NY), Renee Ellmers (R-NC), Virginia Foxx (R-NC), Walter B. Jones (NC), Patrick T. McHenry (R-NC), John Boehner (R-OH), Steve Chabot (R-OH), David Joyce (R-OH), Marcy Kaptur (D-OH), Bob Latta (R-OH), James B. Renacci (R-OH), Tim Ryan (D-OH), Pat Tiberi (R-OH), Brad Wenstrup (R-OH), Peter A. DeFazio (D-OR), Lou Barletta (R-PA), Matt Cartwright (D-PA), Mike Doyle (D-PA), Michael G. Fitzpatrick (R-PA), Mike Kelly (R-PA), Tom Marino (R-PA), Patrick Meehan (R-PA), Tim Murphy (R-PA), Keith Rothfus (R-PA), Jim Langevin (D-RI), Mick Mulvaney (R-SC), Chuck Fleischmann (R-TN), Kevin Brady (R-TX), Joaquin Castro (D-TX), Henry Cuellar (D-TX), Pete Gallego (D-TX), Ruben Jinojosa (D-TX), Michael McCaul (R-TX), Beto O’Rourke (D-TX), Filemon Vela (D-TX), Peter Welch (D-VT), Gerald E. Connolly (D-VA), James P. Moran (D-VA), Sean P. Duffy (R-WI), Paul D. Ryan (R-WI)

Senate Members: Mark Begich (D-AK), Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), Marco Rubio (R-FL), Jim Risch (R-ID), Richard J. Durbin (D-IL), Joe Donnelly (D-IN), Tom Harkin (D-IA), Mary L. Landrieu (D-LA), David Vitter (R-LA), Susan Collins (R-ME), Barbara A. Mikulski (D-MD), John Kerry (D-MA), Claire McCaskill (D-MO), Kelly Ayotte (R-NH), Robert Menendez (D-NJ), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), Heidi Heitkamp (D-ND), John Hoeven (R-ND), Bob Casey (D-PA), Patrick J. Toomey (R-PA), Jack Reed (D-RI), Patrick J. Leahy (D-VT), Tim Kaine (D-VA), Maria Vantwell (D-WA), Patty Murray (D-WA), Joe Manchin III (D-WV)

SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTISTS: For Gun Control

http://adventist.org/beliefs/statements/main-stat4.html

“Pursuits of peace and the preservation of life are to be the goals of Christians. Evil cannot be effectively met with evil, but must be overcome with good. Seventh-day Adventists, with other people of good will, wish to cooperate in using every legitimate means of reducing, and eliminating where possible, the root causes of crime. In addition, with public safety and the value of human life in mind, the sale of automatic or semi-automatic assault weapons should be strictly controlled. This would reduce the use of weapons by mentally disturbed people and criminals, especially those involved in drug and gang activities.”

House Members: Raul Ruiz (D-CA), Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX)

UNITARIANS: For Gun Control:

In a statement dated from 1991, the denomination declares:

“THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Unitarian Universalist Association, its member congregations, and individual Unitarian Universalists be encouraged to petition legislators to enact and support laws such as:

1. the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1991 (HR7) in the United States, which is intended to place nationally uniform, effective limitations on individual possession of
2. handguns, including waiting periods, licensing, and registration;
3. the “Mitchell Compromise”; and
4. Bill C-80 (1991) in Canada, which is intended to make the purchase of firearms more difficult;

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Unitarian Universalist Association, its member congregations, and individual Unitarian Universalists be urged to petition legislators to include safety training programs as a mandatory condition that must be met before firearms can be owned and used; and

BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED that the Unitarian Universalist Association, its member congregations, and individual Unitarian Universalists in the United States be urged to petition legislators to enact and support laws banning private ownership or use of machine guns and semi-automatic and automatic assault weapons.”

House Members: Ami Bera (D-CA)

UNITED BRETHREN: No official statement

House Member: Scott Perry (R-PA)

UNITED CHURCH OF GOD: No official statement

Senate Member: Joe Tester (D-MT)

NON-DENOMINATIONAL OR CHRISTIANS WITH NO STATED DENOMINATIONAL AFFILIATION:

Representatives: Mo Brooks (R-AL); Ken Calvert (R-CA), Tony Cardenas (D-CA), John Garamendi (D-CA), Michael M. Honda (D-CA), Doug LaMalfa (R-CA), Gary G. Miller (R-CA), Eric Swalwell (D-CA), Maxine Waters (D-CA), Doug Lamborn (R-CO), Ed Perlmutter (D-CO), Randy Hultgren (R-IL), Adam Kinzinger (R-IL), Jackie Walorski (R-IN), Todd Young (R-IN), Bill Cassidy (R-LA), Tim Walberg (R-MI), Michele Bachmann (R-MN), Mark Amodei (R-NV), Scott Garrett (R-NJ), Grace Meng (D-NY), Mark Meadows (R-NC), Robert Pittenger (R-NC), Kevin Cramer (R-ND), Bill Johnson (R-OH), Jim Jordan (R-OH), Michael R. Turner [Presbyterian?] (R-OH), Earl Blumenauer (D-OR), Jim Gerlach (R-PA), Joe Pitts (R-PA), Kristi Noem (R-SD), Scott Rigell (R-VA), Jaime Herrera Beutler (R-WA), Doc Hastings [Presbyterian?] (R-WA), Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA)

Senators: Mark Pryor (D-AK), Christopher S. Murphy (D-CT), Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH)

NO RELIGIOUS IDENTIFICATION:

Representatives: Kyrsten Sinema (D-AZ), Judy Chu (D-CA), Jared Huffman (D-CA), Bill Foster (D-IL), Adrian Smith (R-NE), Mark Pocan (D-WI)

Senators: Michael Bennet (D-CO). Mark Udall (D-CO), Tammy Baldwin (D-WI)

OTHER:

Representatives: Tammy Duckworth [Deist] (D-IL), Suzanne Bonamici [raised Episcopalian and Unitarian, goes to Synagogue with husband and children] (D-OR)

_____________________________

Sundry other information and links:

A number of other resources gave insight to this blog’s survey of the religious takes on gun control.  A few:

Religionlink.com compiled this helpful summary, and this one, written after Newtown, of religious takes on gun control.  Both links are stellar, and essential for someone wanting to do a fuller study of religious perspectives on gun control.

The Brady Center has a strong working group, mentioned above, called “Faiths United against Gun Violence.”  Their advocacy for gun control can be found here.

The National Council of Churches also advocates for gun control in this document from 2010:

(1) call upon our local, state, and federal legislators to enact reforms that limit access to assault weapons and handguns, including closing the so-called federal “gun show loophole,” which allows for the purchase of firearms from private sellers without submitting to a background check, or providing documentation of the purchase.

(2) participate with movements such as “Heeding God’s Call” (http://www.heedinggodscall.org/) to insist that commercial sellers adopt and adhere to responsible sales practices.

(3 )prayerfully, financially, and otherwise support the NCC staff in coordinating ecumenical efforts for gun violence reduction, including preparing educational materials about the magnitude of gun violence, developing avenues for dialogue among gun owners and gun control advocates within our congregations, and offering a faithful witness in cooperating with inter-faith and nonreligious anti-gun violence advocacy organizations.

Embedded in that document is reference to this group, Heeding God’s Call.

“Heeding God’s Call is a faith-based movement to prevent gun violence. We unite people of faith in the sacred responsibility to protect our brothers, sisters and children.

• We embrace Dr. Martin Luther King’s hope for peace and safety in our communities.
• We resist apathy to this epidemic of violence, because fear, closed doors, and separation will not end it.

We unite to bring God’s vision of a peaceable kingdom, without the violent loss of over 30,000 American lives by gunfire each year.”

I am opposed to the death penalty.

In every case, no matter what, I am opposed to the death penalty, and I am on the basis of my religious beliefs.

Today’s case is tragic on so many levels: Eric Robert, at least according to all the biographical information I could find, seemed to have a fairly good family situation when growing up: no record of being abused; determined to do well–and did–academically; had a good and respected job; and volunteered in the community.

Publicly he was a “good man.”

Privately, he raped his girlfriend and beat her.

In South Dakota, his relationships with women did not improve.  Another girlfriend accused him of rape, and he ended up in the penitentiary because he abducted and assaulted a woman after pretending to be a police officer.

While in prison, his rage “metastasized,” says this article, and he saw himself as a soldier in a war against the prison system.

And then he did what some soldiers have to do: he killed a prison guard, an enemy soldier to his mind, in his attempt to escape.

He killed this man, RJ Johnson, and told the Judge that he would have killed him too, if he had stood in the way of Robert reaching freedom.

Not only has Eric Robert plead guilty, but he has actually requested that he receive the death penalty.  He refused to allow any of his good works to be presented at the trial, believing that only his awful deeds were relevant to deciding his fate.

So in sentencing him, obliging him of his wish to die, Judge Zell said, “May God have mercy on your soul.”

I can’t help but detect some irony here, as if he is saying “Good luck with that, Robert.  Burn in hell.”

I might be wrong here, and if I am, I will publicly apologize.  But generally, when somebody says to you, “May God have mercy on your soul,” they are not necessarily wishing you well, they are not hoping for the best.

And it is also ironic, because God actually does have a habit of being merciful, precisely to those who don’t deserve it.

In fact, isn’t that the definition of mercy, of grace?  Offering forth something that somebody doesn’t deserve?  Because if a person deserved it, she or he would be getting something else, like a reward, for example, or celestial bonus points.

But grace, but mercy, that’s different.  If you get it, you shouldn’t, but that’s precisely why you are getting it.  Because you shouldn’t.

I am opposed to the death penalty in all cases.

I am not, however, opposed to judgment.

Of course people who commit heinous crimes ought to be punished.  Opposing the death penalty does not therefore mean endorsing anarchy.

But as a Christian, I’ve got a certain take on things.  And so words matter, and are informed by a particular way of thinking about them by way of how I think about God.

There is a strong practice in the Judeo-Christian tradition of something called “restorative justice.”  The goal is not merely “judgment,” but rather, exactly as you might expect, restoration.  That is, something is not well, and as we are about bringing forth healing, we have a calling to seek reconciliation.

In other words, judgment as punishment is not the end.  Judgment is seen as a part of the path to reconciliation.

It is not the end goal or end game.

Restoration, however, is.

And it’s worthy of noting that Jesus didn’t just wait for people to croak before he sought to bring it to them, even the “worst of the worst.”

“Today salvation has come to you,” he said, and in effect on more than one occasion.

To the degree that that bothers a person, that we have a calling to enable restoration to happen, here and now, not just washing our hands of it like Pontius Pilate, one then might be asked about what the goal is, in doling out the death penalty to a convicted criminal.

It seems pretty judgmental to me, in an end-gamey sort of way.

However, when you kill somebody, you not only don’t bring back the life that lived before the crime.  You also take away any chance of repentance, of reconciliation, and of offering mercy and grace to the person who committed it.

Why wouldn’t Christians hold out for these possibilities?

All of these are hallmarks of the reign of God.

I am not advocating for release, early or otherwise, nor am I expecting that reconciliation will always come to pass.  Some people who rape and kill ought to be away from society for ever and for good.

I am advocating for the possibility of restoration, for healing, the sort that can’t happen entirely when one of the parties is killed and the State is complicit in the killing.

Most mainline Protestant denominations officially oppose the death penalty, not to mention the Roman Catholic tradition.  These links here and here are helpful to learn about the significant religious objection to the practice.

To some degree, the specifics of this case don’t matter.  It is about the principle, not about the particular case-at-hand.  The swath of statistics regarding the death penalty show that it is not a deterrent, it costs far more money than incarceration, and is deeply flawed by way of the proportional number of the poor and people of color who sit on the Row.

But this is where the point against the death penalty becomes both most clear and most distressing to me, looking at Christians who favor, clamor, even, for it: When Jesus hung on the cross, looking at those who had killed him–it was an assassination, a political murder, an unjust killing, and he knew it–looking at all those who killed him, by our present standards here in the U.S. (standards shared with nations like, oh, Saudi Arabia, North Korea, Libya, Iraq, Iran, China, and Afghanistan) Jesus should have given them all the death penalty.

Instead, what did he do?

Say “Father, forgive them, for they have no clue what they are doing.”

Hah!  He gave them life, not death, for killing him.

And anyway, let’s be frank.  Does any mentally well person have a clue of what she or he is doing during a perverse crime?  They might know that they are committing one, but can they really be well, doing it?

And can we as a people really be well, when we somehow believe that killing heals?

Let me be clear: there is no way to express my deepest grief at the pain of victims, their families, and their friends.  Every time I think about the death penalty I imagine how I would feel if someone would rape or kill my children.

My eyes fill up and my fists clench and I feel nothing but building rage and revenge brewing in me–even for something that hasn’t happened.

It is hard for me to breathe.

I am not demeaning the pain.

Instead, I’m trying to honor it in a different way: Honor it by finding something healing, something restorative, something that keeps us human in the midst of the inhumanity, that can take root in the center of the rage.

“Today salvation has come,” said Jesus, in effect on more than one occasion.

Salvation in Greek is soteria.

It means, in Greek, health, healing, and wholeness.

May it be so, today, for Eric Robert.

May it be so also for his victims, their families, their friends…and his family, and his friends.

May it be so for all victims of violence and for those who protest it in all its forms.

May God have mercy and grant us all soteria.

____________________________

These sites have further statistics and stories relative to this case and others.

http://www.amnestyusa.org/our-work/issues/death-penalty/us-death-penalty-facts

http://www.cehd.umn.edu/ssw/rjp/

http://www.pattisblog.com/index.php?article=Eric_Robert_Might_See_Things_Too_Clearly_4404&limit=2&page=

Right.

The questioner asks a Lutheran how to find the Holy Spirit in everyday life.

Trouble is, whatever you can say about Lutherans, we aren’t generally known for hanging loose with the Goose.

Now, Jesus, Jesus crops up everywhere in our world.

God the Father (often, I think, shorthanded by plain old “God”) comes up in our liturgy, our petitions (“Almighty God” or “Holy and Everlasting Father”), and in swearing.

Not that Lutherans cuss.

But excepting for baptisms and Pentecost and benedictions, we don’t really have a habit of making a big to-do about the Holy Spirit–certainly compared to our Pentecostal sisters and brothers.

Some say that on those rare occasions when pray for it, we want to send it back home again when it actually shows up.

But what is “it?” What is the Holy Spirit?

The word “Spirit” itself is nebulous…and that word means “vaporous.”  It’s where we get the word “nebulizer,” for example.

It’s hard to catch and hold mist.

In American Sign Language, the sign for Spirit looks like this: Wispy.

In fact, a fairly fine description of a ghost is wispy vapor.

And, wait for it, the Holy Spirit is also called the Holy Ghost!

So ghosts aren’t so much known for making themselves clearly visible (though just a few weeks ago, the kids and I settled in for a cozy hour of snuggling while we watched the Waltons, of all things.  How wholesome and family friendly can you get?  Except when a poltergeist takes over Elizabeth’s world and raggedy dolls move and chairs hover and pianos play and windows open and shut and lights flicker on and off.  I kept telling Else that it would all be explained–it’s the Waltons, after all! I thought what a good way to show that even things that seem really bizarre and scary all have a rational explanation. But nope, it never was.  Elizabeth really was possessed, and Else really is still traumatized. Poor kid.  Bad mom.)

ANYway, the Spirit sure seems to be not a little difficult to define, let alone to see.

Expect for one little thing, a tiny helpful detail that Walt Bouman pointed out in his lectures on the Spirit: The All Important Adjective.

There are all sorts of spirits around.  Christmas, Team, (I’ll put down Teen here too, but that song always makes me want to take a shower for some reason), School, Community.

And there are other forms of the word Spirit: There’s the spirit of someone present, like hearing an orator who speaks in the spirit of Martin Luther King Jr.

And you have alcoholic spirits.

And you have mob spirits.

Now, at a pep rally, you don’t celebrate Christmas Spirit, nor do you deck your halls with Team Spirit, nor do you drink mob spirit (depending, of course, on what you’re tipping).

The point, you see, is that the word “spirit” is rarely used alone, with no reference point, and with the reference point, you get a clearer idea of what sort of spirit is afoot.

So the questioner asked about a specific Spirit, namely the Holy Spirit.

Galatians 5:22 is helpful here: Paul writes “…the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, generosity, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control…”

That is, where you see Holy Spiriting, you see love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, generosity, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control.

Easy, right?

But wait, there’s more.

In a book I’m reviewing now, Ethics of Hope, by Jürgen Moltmann, he speaks of the Spirit in this way: “The coming of the Holy Spirit is nothing other than the beginning of Christ’s parousia [advent].  That is why the Spirit is called ‘the pledge (or guarantee) of glory’ (2 Cor. 1.22; Eph. 1.14).  What begins here in the Spirit will be completed there in the kingdom of glory.” (38)

That is, the Holy Spirit announces the reign of God by word and by action and by, well, spirit.

This, says Moltmann (and I think he’s right), makes the Spirit intrinsically radical.  It’s worth a long quote:

But what does this kingdom of the Spirit reveal? [And here’s the rub of the question above]  According to Joel 2 and Acts 2.17ff, it will be poured out ‘on all flesh’, that is, on all the living inasmuch as they are ‘flesh’–weak, helpless, and hopeless–in order to make them living for eternal life.  ‘Your sons and your daughters will prophesy.’  Men and women will receive these gifts of the Spirit equally.  There are no male privileges.  A charismatic community comes into being where men and women have the same dignity and the same rights.  ‘The old shall dream dreams and the young shall see visions’, so no one is too old and no one is too young.  The generations are equal in their reception of the Spirit.  The Spirit ‘will be poured out on menservants and maidservants’, so the divine Spirit takes no account of slavery and social subjugations; it does away with them.  All the Spirit-filled revival movements in Christianity have these socially revolutionary aspects, as we can see from the Anabaptists in the Reformation period.  Through its forward-pointing existence, the new Spirit-possessed commujnity of men and women, old and young, former slaves and slave-owners, testifies to the world that there is salvation even in danger, testifies to what is permament in a world passing away and to an eternal future in transitory time. (39)

So a hallmark of the Holy Spirit is Holy Social Transformation.

That adjective “Holy” is a keeper here too.  There are all sorts of Social Transformations, but this one is one defined by the Holy Spirit, defined by joy, peace, patience, kindness, generosity, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control.

So how is the Holy Spirit found in everyday life?

Where do you see equality being fostered?

Where do you see mindful patience being used?

Where do you see self-control–not narrow-minded self-control, by the way, reduced to no drinking, feasting, or card-playing–but personal excesses that do not cause someone else’s scarcity?

Where do you see kindness given precisely to those who do not deserve it?

Where do you see joy manifested in gratefulness, even when all other signs point to devastation and despair?

In fact, that last piece about joy reminds me of my son who, as I’ve often said, has taught me the art of Joyful Defiance.  Perhaps that’s the essence of manifest Holy Spirit, come to think of it.

The Holy Spirit is seen in contrast to Unholy Acquiescence.

And, lest we not forget, the Church, and Christians in general, have been known to take part in Unholy Acquiescence.  That is, we have a history of being the anti-Joels, the ones who divide, and create hierarchy based on power rather than call, and attend to the wealthy voices rather than those of the poor.

In fact, one could argue that some of the biggest social advances made within the Church came because the Holy Spirit left the Church in frustration and went out into the World.

Women’s ordination in many denominations began after the societal women’s rights movement, not because, as Walt often pointed out, a bunch of male theologians gathered in a smoke-filled room to review the Bible again and it then dawned on them, with no push whatsoever from the world outside the room, that perhaps the Old Testament prophet Joel, picked up later by Paul, had a point.

Environmental advocacy?  Lutheran theologian Joseph Sittler figured it out long before many of the rest of us in the Church–or outside of it, for that matter.  Take a look and listen here, particularly to his speech given in New Delhi.

But it took those pagan, heathen, infidel tree-huggers (it’s hard to write with tongue-in-cheek spelling) to help the Church see the Holy Spirit Out There.

And one could argue, (like me, for example) that the slow but steady acceptance of gay rights as a matter of civil rights finally happened culturally and socially, and only then religiously.  And now that the Church is moving slowly toward welcoming the valid ministries of gays and lesbians, many might wish that they hadn’t prayed so hard for the Holy Spirit.

See, all of these changes are not painless, are not without conflict.  So be not mistaken that where you see conflict you see no Holy Spirit.

Labor breaths bring new life with great pain.

And that’s precisely what the Holy Spirit is doing: breathing new life into us.

Sharp, life-giving breaths.

Where you feel those, I’m of the mind that you just be glimpsing the Holy Spirit in everyday life.