- Home
- About Us
- Contributors
- Departments
- Topics
- Back Issues
- Weekly Archives
- AmSpecBlog
- Subscribe
- Newsletter
- Advertise
- Donate
- Contact Us
- Daily Digest
- Templeton Essays
The Nation's Pulse
A Letter to the Rev. J. Bennett Guess
"The tendency to equate our political with our Christian
convictions causes politics to generate idolatry."
-- Reinhold Niebuhr
Christianity and Crisis
July 21, 1952
Reverend Guess. If I may.
Doubtless the articles in this space have given you some heartburn over the last couple of weeks. For you and Leigh Hunt Greenhaw, the chair of the United Church of Christ's Office of Communications, I don't doubt that you both have experienced many different thoughts and emotions as what you undoubtedly felt to be a good-faith interfaith project, So We Might See, was reported on in a far different light than you could have imagined.
The repercussions have been, you are surely thinking, not happy ones.
But is that really so? Is it perhaps something else instead -- a chance to explore? Since other denominations have had members come forward with their thoughts on all of this, I thought perhaps it would be useful to say something to both you, Reverend Ben, and Leigh, in your capacity as the chair of the UCC OC. As always, I speak here for myself, as is the polity of our faith.
Two stories. Two names.
Vernon Johns. Pauline Kael.
Two very different people who, some might think, would never be found occupying the same sentence.
Vernon Johns, though not a household name today, is as I'm sure you both know, considered by many to be the father of the American Civil Rights movement. Once upon a time he was indeed well known. In fact, his sermon entitled Transfigured Moments was so well respected that its inclusion in the 1926 edition of Best Sermons made Reverend Johns the first African-American to have his work included in this annual volume.
Dr. Johns has another, very distinctive role in American religious history, which I'm sure both of you are familiar with as well. He was once the famous pastor of the Dexter Avenue Baptist Church in Montgomery, Alabama. And when the unknown young minister who would take his pulpit began his ministry at Dexter, Martin Luther King, Jr. felt compelled to introduce himself to a larger audience as Dr. Johns' successor.
The story is told that later, much later, in the late summer of 1963 when Dr. King was globally famous as the leader of the American Civil Rights movement, his fame now completely overshadowing Dr. Johns, Dr. King found himself emotionally and spiritually exhausted. 1963 had been a difficult year, filled with triumph and tragedy. King had led the protests in Birmingham, Alabama -- and promptly been imprisoned. Yet while in jail he famously wrote the Letter from a Birmingham Jail. There were other marches, other calls on his eloquence. There were protests in Maryland, Mississippi, and North Carolina. Medgar Evers was assassinated. The legendary Fannie Lou Hamer was beaten and jailed. And perhaps most symbolically of the attacks on freedom that year, four little girls were killed in the bombing of Birmingham's Sixteenth Baptist Church.
Dr. King, as difficult as it might seem to believe today, was having an increasingly difficult time finding the words he felt he needed to keep going, to keep inspiring. So he sent his lawyer to go find old Dr. Johns. Why? Martin Luther King felt he needed his predecessor's old sermon notes. He felt that they and perhaps only they could inspire him to keep on keeping on in the job of inspiring change, to continue giving voice to the job of finally enshrining freedom for all Americans. The lawyer, Chauncey Eskridge, managed to locate Dr. Johns in Petersburg, Virginia. Now an old man, he was not doing well financially and Eskridge initially thought him a local wino. It turned out that Johns was not, or so it appeared, much of a sermon note kind of minister. But he had what the lawyer called "clouds in his head" that could materialize on short order as set pieces of inspiring message.
Let's leave Dr. Johns for the moment and move on to Pauline Kael.
The late Ms. Kael was, over three decades, the acerbic film critic of the New Yorker magazine, no doubt terrorizing a good many movie directors with her tart-tongued assessment of their work. A graduate of the University of California at Berkley, she had chosen writing over a career in the law. Described by the New York Times at her death as possessing "an intellectualism that reflected her background as a student of philosophy," Ms. Kael divided her time between a lovely home in Massachusetts and a hotel in Manhattan, where she felt compelled to spend several days a week seeing the latest cinematic offerings that she would then dissect with the skill of a surgeon.
Yet there is one quote associated with Ms. Kael that has nothing to do with her career as a film critic.
Comments
Leave a Comment
- The Right of Conscience in the Age of Obama
- ‘Call Fox’
- Advent Is Coming
Appleby| 11.4.09 @ 6:43AM
It still annoys me that people will take money even from Satan as long as they can get the money, and then profess shock and ignorance as to what strings Satan has attached.
TANSTAAFL is still the rule and there are no exceptions.
P.S. It is also not true that if you do not make eye contact with the speeding car when you step out into the street, that it cannot hit you.
hjyj| 11.4.09 @ 10:47PM
Capture Streaming Video is a professional streaming capture software, that can capture all streaming media from Internet, such as capture video stream and capture audio, radio, online tv stream
iPhone To Computer Transfer is a powerful converter, mutually trasferring playlists, songs, pictures between iPhone and computer.
SandyC| 11.4.09 @ 7:28AM
Mr. Lord- Thank you for keeping up with this discussion. Politics has no place in any religion, ever. I've been doing some research on a Democrat from VA's 5th district, Tom Perriello. He is a Catholic, yet he is also a far left Progressive, who according to the Virginia Conservative Caucus reports has no visible income other than what he is paid by a number of Soros funded non-profits such as Res Publica. He spent 7 years in New York, before coming back to his hometown, just in time to run for a Congressional seat. His campaign was heavily funded by none other than Soros, and the entire Soros family. While in New York, he was very involved in discussion panels that talked about the Progressives taking on the religious issues, and, "beating" the religious right at their game, and, plotting just how to do that. As a Catholic, whose very base principle at it's core is anti-abortion, he needs someone earthly to tell him it's OK to be pro-abortion. I guess Pelosi and Biden also need some cover for their positions that would normally be reason for excommunication from the Catholic church. I read somewhere that this new Progressive movement has adopted the position that "if we redistribute the wealth, and, everyone was equal, there would be less abortions"??????????????????
The Catholic church has been bleeding it's congregation, not so much because of the pedofile priests, but, because of it's apparent adoption of Leftist ideas, such as welcoming all of God's children, including the illegals. They have apparently gone with the Radicals in believing that the welfare state is utopia. The message they have missed is that you can teach a person to fish and they will eat for the rest of their lives, but, if you provide someone with one fish today, they will not bother to enjoy the accomplishments of personal responsibility, and will just keep going back to the government hand that feeds them. Isn't that what the Progressive government is all about?
Robert Herring| 11.4.09 @ 9:50AM
" ...all God's children, including the illegals." Jesus said, "Love thy neighbor as thyself." He did NOT say, "Love thy neighbor, but only if he has the proper papers." And where is the "somewhere" you read that Progressives believe that redistributed wealth might reduce abortions? Vaguely-attributed citations are the refuge of the intellectually weak. Another sign of weakness might also be your inability to spell properly the possessive form of "it."
Sheryl| 11.4.09 @ 11:35AM
He obviously also did not say that any nation needs to coddle and cater to any people who continue to break the laws of the very nation they want to live in. Just another example of trying to use some fairy-tale notion of Jesus to promote idiotic leftist notions.
Alan Brooks| 11.4.09 @ 2:34PM
Be a bit more specific about love. Do you mean conceivably even love (i.e. molest) hispanic alien kids, or take some photos of them nude?
Not unprecedented. You DO admit morality has been replaced by situational ethics?
Alan Brooks| 11.4.09 @ 2:37PM
you wont admit it?
Golly gee, you play the cards close to your chest.
SandyC| 11.4.09 @ 9:32PM
Alan Brooks- I am not sure of who you are responding to here, but, moral relativism is apparently the rule of the day, literally.
As to Mr. Robert Herring, I think I may know who he is, and, if so, he is very confused. If I am correct on his identity, he was an Army soldier that served in Iraq, and, somehow got to believing that he was nothing more than a Plastic Soldier, playing in the sand in George Bush's sandbox. He got to believing that all of us supporters of our military here in the US, were nothing more than yellow magnet on your SUV idiots.
He claims that illegals are all God's children, yet, he has no time to see the massive destruction that Saddam Hussien did on all of his own people, with Chemical weapons, mutilation, rape, buring people alive in mass graves and etc.
I've excused Mr. Herring as a very misguided person. He makes no sense.
Margie| 11.5.09 @ 3:02PM
To love thy neighbor as thyself. If you truly love yourself you it means that you seek, speak, and serve the Truth. Loving your neighbor means you are willing to do the same towrds him, out of love. Eph. 4:15.
~Therefore if you love your neighbor you will tell him that he is breaking the law, if he is breaking the law, and you will advise him accordingly.
Ryan| 11.4.09 @ 8:27AM
Probably one of the first times I have issues with a Lord article.
There's nothing about the Gospel, and the mission of any church that attaches itself to Jesus Christ. It's not about free speech, or political freedoms, or who gave what money to whom.
Any time a church does something other than preach Christ and Him crucified, it's off track. Jesus didn't come to spark political rebellion or free the masses. He came "not to be serve, but to serve, and give His life as a Ransom for many."
I'm not saying that politics and religion have nothing to do with each other - my worldview and my politics are profoundly affected by my religious views, as they should be - but I AM saying that there is little to nothing in the New Testament regarding political matters.
Jeffrey Lord| 11.4.09 @ 9:27AM
Ryan...
Actually, we don't disagree. I believe the American Left has to a considerable degree tried to politicize the church - which is one of the reasons people leave mainline churches like mine. Jesus is not on record, to the best of my knowedge, that expanding the size and scope of government was something he learned at the right hand of His Father.
Ryan| 11.4.09 @ 10:54AM
On that part, we agree. However, you pushed a political argument at the UCC without touching on the real problem - simply that the Gospel is to be the core of any church that proclaims Christ; I also feel that to correct a minister in that position, you need to use the Word to show him his errors. If your church proclaims to be a Christian one, then there's an authority that you can turn to.
Of course, there's a completely better method that Paul gave for dealing with brothers who are off track (go read the Peacemaker), but I wonder if the UCC is so off base generally that it's worth the trouble.
victor| 11.4.09 @ 9:56PM
2 Tim 3:16-
"All scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine for reproof for correction for instruction in righteousness."
Jay P. Green, Sr. has an excellent interlinear Bible where you can point to the Greek, no question there.
Ken (Old Texican)| 11.4.09 @ 9:24AM
Ryan
May I respectfully disagree.
The people who read the gospels "one word at a time" simply seem to fail to step back and observe the "political maelstrom" swirling all around Jesus and His disciples.
ie: the Sanhedrin (sic), Sadducees, Pharasees The Roman Empire, The Zealots, and yep, still some Maccabees around.
Uh...and the coming of the Kingdom of Heaven.
To Jesus, all the other "governments/politics" were simply distractions. "Love one another, remember me as often as you break bread...until I come again."
Ryan| 11.4.09 @ 10:50AM
And yet Jesus never really commented for or against any of them on political matters (other than taxes, and he was actually making a religious point there).
The Gospel is not reliant on politics. No, it doesn't happen in a political vacuum, but there's an improper focus in modern conservative Christianity that attempts a sort of authoritarianism in pushing people to not sin - and it doesn't address the heart of the matter -
That people, irregardless of time, era, politics, nationality, status, race, etc, all need the Gospel, and that it's the work of Christ in our hearts that truly changes us - not laws, not regulations, not more or less government.
I would say that when we feel we have to enact laws to force people to go one way or the other, then we have not done our real job as Christians.
Ken (Old Texican)| 11.4.09 @ 11:11AM
Ryan
"Disagree" is probably the wrong word above. Perhaps "round out your thought" would have been more appropriate.
As to your post immediately preceeding this post...
one word...Amen
Ryan| 11.4.09 @ 11:14AM
That works. Regards.
John II| 11.4.09 @ 12:50PM
One thing doesn't work, though. There's no such word as "irregardless." I'm sure Jesus wasn't a usage freak about the Aramaic he spoke, considering the rough lot he hung around with. But it's inconceivable that he would ever say the Aramaic equivalent of "irregardless" when he means "regardless."
It's an apparent confusion with the correct "irrespective." But if there really were such an English word, I suppose it would mean "not without regard to," which would be a tad more accurate. The Gospel is not without regard to socio-political matters. A legal system, for example, which permits the destruction of innocent human life is radically at odds with the Gospel. A social system that tolerates and neglects to correct such a legal system is radically at odds with the Gospel, and very likely to suppress the Gospel down the road.
Rhetorical question: Should Dietrich Bonhoeffer have ignored the Nazi regime as irrelevant to the Gospel?
Ryan| 11.4.09 @ 2:42PM
I'm not saying that the Gospel doesn't have political implications (such as abortion or Nazism); what I AM saying is that the focus of churches should be on spreading the Gospel, not on overt political matters. Bonhoeffer sought to spread the Gospel in spite of Nazi opposition - he actually proves my point in that he didn't go the route of the "mainstream" churches and drop the Gospel altogether.
Part of me though I was using "irregardless" wrong. At least it wasn't ironic.
John II| 11.4.09 @ 6:19PM
Well, I didn't think it was deliberately ironic on your part; I just meant to point out that a careless use of language can create ironies we don't intend.
I don't think we disagree in any serious way, Ryan. How could we, in light of the experience of the past 50 years or so? When my own Catholic Church, for example, opened herself up to the world in the wake of the Second Vatican Council, a fair chunk of the Church's membership was obviously swallowed up by a world that largely remains indifferent or hostile to the Gospel.
The mess is being cleaned up now by many thoughtful and saintly folks, and many old lessons have been re-learned, but the damage itself can never be repaired. Rack it up as another wound inflicted on the suffering Christ, I suppose, but t the worldly consequences alone of imposing a worldly optic on the Gospel are pretty gruesome. I can think of quite a few other eras I would have preferred to live through, now that I'm an ironic old man.
victor| 11.4.09 @ 10:12PM
Immorality is now political, witness the sinners pushing the sin upon Believers and expecting us to not only accept them, but approve them.
Look at all the comments about the Maine Question #1 banning so-called homosexual "marriage". They just want to be left alone, in their sin. As long as they are happy, in their sin, we must accept them.
All sin is now political, the perverts wants us to "love" them.
If we attempt to tell them about Jesus, they charge us with "hate" crimes.
I had one such "pastor" by the name of Chuck who attempted to tell me it was a "hate" crime to witness to muslims.
Margie| 11.5.09 @ 2:51PM
Ryan is right.
I prefer non denominational churches. I've never belonged to a denomination and wouldn't ever comprimise myself in that way. The very word denomination means comprimise to me. It means that the Churches all have "their way" of believing, rather than God's way. In Christ there ought not to be any denominations. We're supposed to be of one mind, one spirit, one body in Him according to the Bible. I'd rather meet with fellow believers in the woods somewhere if I had to, than attend a denominational "church." A church is not a building to begin with. It's a body of believers. No worries about political concerns there. Each person has their own mind and knows how to vote and what the right thing to do is concerning politics. Church is wherever two or three are gathered in His name. Mt. 18:20. "Then I heard another voice from heaven saying, "Come out of her, my people, lest you take part in her sins, lest you share in her plagues" Rev. 18:4.
Alan Brooks| 11.4.09 @ 9:53AM
we ought to explain that social progress is over; the height of social progress was the '80s.
Now gays can get married in Iowa, soon in Maine. Then, 50 years from now, in Mississippi.
500 years from now gays will be able to marry in sub-Saharan Africa. That is progress.
Hush this cry of progress 'til a thiousand years have past.
SandyC| 11.4.09 @ 12:32PM
Alan Brooks- Maine voted against gay marriage yesterday. That now makes 31 states that will not allow gay marriage.
Cosnervative Bob| 11.4.09 @ 10:37AM
Mr Lord,
Thank you for the excellent letter and well articulated defense of freedom of speech. Your points are well made in a manner that makes reasoned refutation difficult if not impossible. I trust that some will chose another road.
Earlier in this series I was moved to reflect on my own denomination (ELCA) and how the “Corporate” hierarchy has been totally over run and infiltrated by the liberal progressive left.
In my own denomination, read the recently adopted position on abortion that tries with a straight face to argue that every unborn child does not have an inherent right to be born. You can believe whatever you wish from a secular perspective but for a Church founded on the Grace of God and the Risen Christ to try to remain true to its beliefs on the one hand and argue that some do not necessarily deserve to be born on the other makes a laughing stock of their entire ministry.
I think that the board who put such nonsense in writing suffers from Ms. Klein’s warms as well. Recent decisions by this same body as it relates to same sex marriage and ordination of practicing homosexuals speak to the same.
Individuals may believe and do as they wish however the scriptures are unequivocal on the subject.
As mainstream religions rush to embrace popular culture and adjust the principles of their faith to fit their influence and value you to their congregations diminish.
If these fundamental issues are open for negotiation today what articles of faith will we be free to cast aside tomorrow?
We must in our own congregations and denominations do as you are doing here call them to task for their actions and hold them to account for what they do in the name of the faith.
Well written and well done!
Former ELCA| 11.4.09 @ 1:21PM
Conservative Bob, I hope you will join my recent departure from ELCA to finally join the LCMS. I say "finally" because I should have done it 30 years ago, yet until the most recent, most blatant abandonment of Biblically-based Christianity (approval of homosexuality), with every non-Biblical leftward lurch I would think "Well, some day they'll correct this error, and surely they won't go any FURTHER into error!" BOY WAS I WRONG!! I've given up on the internal reform "let's not leave but fix it from within" movements since they are such a marginalized minority. The anti-Christs have won ELCAs denominational structure and resources. However sad, it's time to let those go and 'move on.'
Conservative Bob| 11.4.09 @ 4:03PM
I know the leadership of a number of congregations and have moved around the country. The Central leadership does not reflect the views or wishes of any congregation I have ever known.
Leaving may be my only option ultimately but I am reluctant to be driven out by usurpers and interlopers.
For a number of years I was president of the congregation and for an additional period I served on the council.
For several years we expressed our displeasure by and through the contributions and responses to special requests from the synod offices.
I think as in the secular public debate our tendency to be polite to be respectful of others in our words our adherence to our faith principles is used against us. Unlike other faiths we don’t burn building and turn over cars or scream and rant and rave, as a consequence our institutions are being taken from us.
I live in the Deep South now and both ELCA and LCMS congregations are in limited numbers.
Michael Dooley| 11.4.09 @ 10:49AM
I have no problem with Christians engaging in politics. What I object to is using the Church as a platform for one's politic agenda.
We live in a divided world where within any Church and congregation you will find a whole variety of political views--views often at direct odds with each other. One "baptize" one faction to the exclusion of others is by nature divisive.
The Church should be the ONE place where men and women can gather together in peace, put their partisanship aside, and worship the Lord and proclaim the Gospel.
Christians are to feed the hungry, heal the sick, clothe the naked, and care for the widow and orphan. But none of these command the Christian to support a particular political agenda or piece of legislation. Being "as Christ" to those whom we meet gives us no special expertise to apply to all the troubles among humanity. A little humility is in order.
victor| 11.4.09 @ 10:31PM
Feeding and clothing the hungry is part of the church, you should not forget
Jesus' Great Commision:
Mark 16:15-16
15 And he said unto them, Go you into all the world, and preach the gospel to the whole creation.
16 He that believes and is baptized shall be saved; but he that disbelieves shall be condemned.
If you now preach Christ as he was and is, you will be condemned and persecuted.
http://www.persecution.com/
Preaching the Gospel IS now political as those who do not want to have anything to do with Jesus are doing everything they can to prevent Jesus form being known.
http://www.opendoorsusa.org/
Ken (Old Texican)| 11.4.09 @ 11:16AM
Mr. Lord
Once again, splendid, needed, and appreciated by all Christians saved by grace....in spite of our selves.
(smile)
Lullaby's, Legends and Lies| 11.4.09 @ 11:16AM
MR Lord: What a very powerful (and long), yet polite letter you composed here. I’m sure the Reverend Guess took this rebuke in the fashion it was intended, to shine a light on this corrupt organization that’s trying to use the veil of religion, to advance its political agenda using the Church as a patsy. There’s a very good chance that he had no idea, about what was hiding behind this group (So We Might See), because of a lapse of judgment, or just ignorance to their true intentions. So I hope he responds to you about your concerns, and what he’s doing to address them now. And that you’ll be able to release his response to you, and hopefully, if he read all of your previous columns about this, he’ll have some good news to report to you about what he’s doing address them.
Jesus and George Soros shouldn’t be said in the same sentence ever, (and I ask for forgiveness for doing it just now) and definitely not within the walls of a Church. Every political denomination should be welcomed in the Church, and not be asked to sit in the rear pews because they don’t believe in, or vote Democratic. So the Church(s) should just focus on the teaching's of Jesus, and stay out of the political business completely, (a little separation of State and Church, so to speak?) because it never works out well in the end, as you so eloquently stated here.
Paula| 11.4.09 @ 9:15PM
Church communities need to respond to the world around them, but they have the responsibility to gather all the information and pray for the Will of the Father. In the condemnation of Rush Limbaugh it was mention that 2 youths beat up 2 illegal aliens after Limbaugh had discussed illegal aliens. That is like the locals here condemning a pastor for the death of young boy at the hands of his abusive father after the pastor had quoted "Spare the rod, Spoil the child". I remember when Ceasar Chevaz led the grape and lettuce boycott (mom wouldn't buy grapes, but I did mind not having the lettuce) and formed the United Farm Workers. Part of the battle was the fight against illegals as they not only took jobs away they cause the wages of the farm workers to be too low. Maybe we have a responsibility to listen to all sides. Building missions in Mexico to help the poor and others in the US to help our newest Americans is not easy or headline grabbing. It is always easy to hate someone else than to do the all the work it takes to love someone.
SandyC| 11.4.09 @ 9:40PM
Over the years, the US has given Mexico so many many millions of dollars, in hopes that the Mexican government will fight the corruption in their government, and, make life better for their own people. The money has obviously gone to the corrupt in Mexico. When will the Mexican people stand up against the massive corruption, and, take the country back. It sems that breaking into the US, illegally, has been the answer for Mexican prosperity for all Mexicans, legal and illegal.
Brian| 11.4.09 @ 11:29PM
Leftists think free speech is only intended for leftists aka the "enlightened ones". Does the author actually think these leftists are unaware of history? Free speech for others may be done away with now that that which is perfect has arrived. The debate is over!
John Wright| 11.5.09 @ 12:46PM
First, my compliments to Jeffery Lord for his well thought letter to the UCC's Reverend Guess. I look forward to a response if made available.
Secondly, I sincerely agree with poster Michael Dooley who espouses that time in church is for "...where men and women can gather together in peace, put their partisanship aside, and worship the Lord and proclaim the Gospel. "
To that: Amen!
I'm an outspoken conservative in my community and now a former member of its mostly liberal UCC. After experiencing direct snubs and public ridicule from some of the congregants for my opinions, I wasn't comfortable in remaining a member any longer. Life does continue and it is good.
Charles Jackson| 11.5.09 @ 3:41PM
I stopped reading Mr. Lord's UCC diatribes long ago. Why does TAS use valuable space allowing him to rant and rave on an issue that most of us don't give a damn about. Let Mr. Lord find his Lord in his own way - privately.
Jeffrey Lord| 11.5.09 @ 8:23PM
Charles...
If my Lord is being used as an excuse to cut off your talk radio and Fox News, one would hope someone speaks up. I have. You, apparently, could care less. So how conservative are you? Really? Hmmmm...
Appleby| 11.6.09 @ 4:39PM
Mr. Jackson, if you don't care about the topic, why don't you post on one that you do care about, and leave this one alone?
If Mr. Lord were writing about baseball, would you find it necessary to butt in and tell us all how you don't care about baseball? And if so, why?
betsy| 11.12.09 @ 3:30PM
Thank you for your most interesting article. I agree that to deny free speech in the name of Christ is absolute hypocricy. I am shocked and disillustioned to note that the Con. of Catholic Bishops joined in this attempt to gag free speech. The Catholic Church is also being splintered by our politically correct members who want my church to support their political agenda at the expense of the church (which is the people.) Respond