Dispatches from the religious left

by Frederick Clarkson

  My name was Isabella; but when I left the house of bondage, I left everything behind. I wa'n't goin' to keep nothin' of Egypt on me, an' so I went to the Lord an asked him to give me a new name. And the Lord gave me Sojourner, because I was a travel up an down the land, showin the people their sins, an' bein a sign unto them. Afterward I told the lord I wanted another name, `cause everybody else had two names; and the Lord gave me Truth, because I was to declare the truth to the people.

  Sojourner Truth also breathed theological life into America's primary founding documents, the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution:

  Children, I talks to God and Gods talks to me. I goes out and talks to God in de fields and de woods. [The weevil had destroyed thousands of acres of wheat in the West that year.] Dis morning I was walking out, and I got over de fence. I saw de wheat a holding up its head, looking very big. I goes up and take holt ob it. You b'lieve it, dere was no wheat dare? I says `God .... what is de matter wid dis wheat? and he says to me, "Sojourner, dere is a little weasel in it." Now I hears talkin' about de Constitution and de rights of man. I comes up and I takes hold of dis Constitution. It looks mighty big, and I feels for my rights, but der aint any dare. Den I says, God what ails dis Constitution? He says to me, "Sojourner, dere is a little weasel in it.

  Harriet Tubman, the most successful conductor of the Underground Railroad, was called the Black Moses. She called upon her god to provide her with the strength to carry out the divine task of liberating others from the horrors of slavery:

  I had crossed the line. I was free, but there was no one to welcome me to the land of freedom. I was a stranger in a strange land; and my home, after all, was down in Mary land; because my father, my mother, my brothers, and sisters, and friends were there. But I was free, and they should be free. I would make a home in the North and bring them there, God helping me. Oh, how I prayed then," she said; "I said to the Lord, `I'm going to hold steady on to you, and I know you'll see me through.

  Tubman awoke one morning in 1862 singing, "My people are free! My people are free!" Later, reflecting on her nineteen dead-ofwinter journeys to liberate slaves, she wrote: "I just asked Jesus to take care of me, and He never let me get frost-bitten one bit."

  In the twentieth century, progressive social movements called upon god to improve the conditions of the American working class. At the Progressive Political Convention of 1912, the delegates marched down the convention floor singing, "Onward Christian Soldiers." The Reverend George Washington Woodbey, pastor of Mount Zion Baptist Church, ran for Vice President with Socialist Party presidential candidate Eugene Debs. In a powerful dialogue with his Christian mother, Woodbey said he believed that god and the mission of Jesus were compatible with socialism. Eventually, his mother converted to socialism, but never surrendered Jesus. For Woodbey, socialism-the democratization of capital-was the closest political system to the gospel.

  The Civil Rights Movement was the last serious invocation of the prophetic god on American soil, as hymns and spirituals became songs of freedom. "I woke up this morning with my mind stayed on Jesus" became "I woke up this morning with my mind stayed on freedom." To the civil rights marchers, Jesus meant both existential and political freedom.

  "Somewhere we must come to see that human progress never rolls in on the wheels of inevitability," the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. proclaimed in one of his final sermons. "It comes through the tireless efforts and the persistent work of dedicated individuals who are willing to be co-workers with God."The goal of his Southern Christian Leadership Conference was "to redeem the soul of the nation." King brought into the public space the prophetic African American evangelistic idiom in order to extend the rights of democratic citizenship to his people: "We have waited for more than 340 years for our constitutional and God-given rights," he proclaimed in his famous "Letter from Birmingham Jail." "We will win our freedom because the sacred heritage of our nation and the eternal will of God are embodied in our echoing demands."The relationship between prophetic faith and the covenants of democracy shine most compellingly in his conclusion:

  One day the South will know that when these disinherited children of God sat down at lunch counters, they were in reality standing up for what is best in the American dream and for the most sacred values in our Judeo-Christian heritage, thereby bringing our nation back to those great wells of democracy which were dug deep by the founding fathers in their formulation of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.

  In what is considered his most "dangerous" speech, "A Time to Break the Silence," King invoked the spirit of Harriet Tubman and Sojourner Truth, declaring that the challenge of calling upon god in the struggle for social justice was a "vocation of agony." Indeed, he gave the speech in the midst of death threats, repudiation from the SCLC's board of directors, and merciless attacks in the mainstream and African-American media.

  In the same speech, King also challenged the monopoly on religious discourse shaped by conservative religious individuals and institutions, thereby creating space for the revelation of the prophetic god:

  Some of us who have already begun to break the silence of the night have found that the calling to speak is often a vocation of agony, but we must speak. We must speak with all the humility that is appropriate for our limited vision, but we must speak. And, we must rejoice as well, for surely this is the first time in our nation's history that a significant number of its religious leaders have chosen to move beyond the prophesying of smooth patriotism to the high grounds of a firm dissent based upon the mandates of conscience and the reading of history.

  King invoked the prophetic god in denouncing "the giant triplets of racism, materialism, and militarism" and criticized the role of the United States in both the manipulation of foreign governments and its treatment of the poor (at home and abroad), which has led to the crisis of democracy we are experiencing today:

  A true revolution of values will soon cause us to question the fairness and justice of many of our past and present policies. On the one hand we are called to play the Good Samaritan on life's roadside, but that will be only an initial act. One day we must come to see that the whole Jericho Road must be transformed so that men and women will not be constantly beaten and robbed as they make their journey on life's highway. True compassion is more than flinging a coin to a beggar; it is not haphazard and superficial. It comes to see that an edifice which produces beggars needs restructuring.

  This courageous oration transcended the details and consequences of the policies of the U.S. government in order to address the nature of religion and democracy, to show how they are in constant dialogue, and to reveal to us the religious precedents for democratic expansion.

  In his last sermon, at Mason Temple Church of God in Christ in Memphis, Tennessee, King linked religion, democracy, and social protest, and demonstrated how they figured into an intimate conversation with striking Memphis sanitation workers:

  We have an injunction and we're going into court tomorrow morning to fight this illegal, unconstitutional injunction. All we say to America is, "Be true to what you said on paper." If I lived in China or even Russia, or any totalitarian country, maybe I could understand the denial of certain basic First Amendment privileges, because they hadn't committed themselves to that over there. But somewhere I read of the freedom of assembly. Somewhere I read of the freedom of speech. Somewhere I read of the freedom of the press. Somewhere I read that the greatness of America is the right to protest for right. And so just as I say, we aren't going to let any injunction turn us around.

  King then rhetorically addressed the question of the role of clergy in democracy, which was as tricky a question then as it is now: "Who is it that is supposed to articulate the longings and aspirations of the people more than the preacher?" He acknowledged the presence of clergy from around the country and challenged them to engage in what he called "relevant ministry":

  It's all right to talk about "long white robes over yonder," in all of its
symbolism. But ultimately people want some suits and dresses and shoes to wear down here. It's all right to talk about "streets flowing with milk and honey," but God has commanded us to be concerned about the slums down here, and his children who can't eat three square meals a day. It's all right to talk about the new Jerusalem, but one day, God's preachers must talk about the New York, the new Atlanta, the new Philadelphia, the new Los Angeles, the new Memphis, Tennessee.

  This remains the challenge for a contemporary, authentic Religious Left. The levees breached in New Orleans in 2005 exposed a city in which poverty and racism were endemic. These realities coalesced in real-time as the nation watched thousands of its fellow citizens being left to their own devices in the face of a Category Five hurricane. To return New Orleans to its pre-Katrina state, where one-quarter of African-American men and one-third of African-American women lived below the poverty line, would be unjust. My search for meaning during my time in the Lower Ninth Ward led me to ask, as have others: Where was god? Why had not god intervened? How could democracy have failed us so miserably? These questions continue to haunt me even as I find solace in the god of prophesy and hope in the promise and possibility of democracy.

  THE FUTURE OF DEMOCRACY IN AMERICA

  Martin Luther King's understanding of religion and democracy cut hard against the dominant theology of his time, even within the African American church. In 1958, he and 2,000 other Baptist ministers were expelled from the National Baptist Convention because of their commitment to civil rights. Moreover, of the nearly 500 black churches in Birmingham, Alabama in 1963, only nine participated in the Civil Rights Movement. The "Letter from Birmingham Jail" was partly written in response to local clergymen who found King's presence to be "untimely."

  There will be analogous situations today for all of us who enter the prophetic tradition, as there have always been religious forces that have promoted or opposed democratic expansion. The Bible was used to justify slavery and segregation, but those who participated in the Underground Railroad had a different reading of scripture. Other times, it has been used to justify the status quo, or to do nothing in the face of oppression. We can see this in the experience of the women's movement, and any other movement for democratic expansion. We certainly see it in the contemporary struggle over marriage equality. The reproductive rights movement traces part of its lineage to a United Methodist Women meeting in a church basement in Dallas, Texas. What has moved history and expanded democracy has been prophetic minorities willing to risk life and limb to seize the public's imagination and transform politics and public policy. The thirteenth, fourteenth and fifteenth Amendments to the Constitution, the Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act are testament to this tradition.

  I believe that an authentic and politically dynamic Religious Left can learn how the reading of scripture in close proximity to the sacred texts of American history and government can offer us a narrative of religious and civic discourse that is centered on the expansion of democratic opportunity. This has long been central to the struggles of African Americans, and is widely accessible and resonant in our culture in the stories of Sojourner Truth, Harriet Tubman, and Martin Luther King. I believe such a narrative can energize and inform a revival of the best of the prophetic tradition and provide a clean break from neo-liberalism and all its variants. This narrative is so powerful, so integral to our nation's history and our highest aspirations as a society, and has played such a profound role in the boldest, most successful movements for social justice, that it can salvage our democracy with an authenticity worthy of the founding of Christianity, and on a scale that could exceed the Protestant reformation.

  I realize that this vision will unbelievable to many. But just over hundred and fifty years ago, it would have been inconceivable for me to be writing these words as a free man in my native Arkansas.

  PART II.

  Memos on Hot Button Issues

  A PROGRESSIVE VISION

  OF CHURCH-STATE RELATIONS

  REV. BARRY W. LYNN

  Some pundits claim that the Religious Right is dead. I'm not joining their chorus. The movement isn't even seriously wounded. Wishing it would go away is like whistling past the graveyard while the zombies are already crawling over the fence.

  Similarly, many of the "new evangelicals," although more committed to easing poverty and preserving the environment, still hold to anti-woman, anti-GLBT, anti-constitutional rights agendas. So, what would a genuinely progressive "religious left" do with the Bill of Rights?

  No matter where your political ideology takes you, it needs to be rooted in a respect for the Constitution's values. In fact, those are the "values" that define the limits of government power.

  I am a progressive Christian minister. I disagree with the way the Religious Right interprets the Bible. I think they get Jesus all wrong. Their theology leaves me cold. I lament the close ties between far-right religions and the federal government that arose during the presidency of Ronald W. Reagan and were cemented under George W. Bush.

  That means I want to see a progressive version of Christianity aligned with the government, right? I must want to see our public policies and programs reflect a progressive interpretation of the scriptures, correct?

  No way. I have no more interest in a left-wing theocracy than I do a right-wing theocracy. I am anti-theocracy across the board. What I want is a nation that values the rights of all people-religious and non-religious. I want a government that understands that how, if and when you choose to worship is none of its business. I want a government based on secular laws anchored in our secular Constitution. I don't want to see anyone's interpretation of the Bible elevated to public policy.

  The Founders made some mistakes. Tolerating slavery and denying women the right to vote were two. But one thing they got right was church-state relations. At a time when just about everyone thought government had to have a religious prop behind it-be it a single state church or some kind of system that favored Christianity generally-our Founders had a bold vision: a secular state backed by a two-pronged guarantee of religious liberty: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...."

  To top it off, they included Article VI, which bans religious tests for public office. They gave us a constitution that makes no references to Jesus Christ, Christianity or God. It's a brilliant principle. The Religious Right has spent thirty years trashing it. It say let's abide by it.

  What should this mean in practice? This progressive vision of church-state relations rests on a handful of key assumptions:

  • In the eyes of the government, all people are equal and worthy of respect, regardless of what you believe or don't believe about God. You don't get more rights for having the "correct" faith. You don't get penalized for being an atheist or a non-Christian. Ideally, the government would not even know what you believe or don't believe. It's none of their business.

  • Neutrality, neutrality, neutrality! All religious groups (and similarly situated secular bodies) are treated equally. A benefit extended to one is extended to all. Burdens are equally shared. No such thing as a "faithbased" initiative exists. The state does not assume a bias toward belief over non-belief. It is not assumed that religious belief is the default standard that makes a "good" American.

  • Government does not co-opt religious symbols and language. The display of religious symbols and codes is the work of religious bodies. Government does not employ religious rhetoric and borrow its symbols to justify its actions.

  • Theology equals bad public policy. The government must not adopt theology as the basis for laws that apply to us all. For example, the Religious Right loathes gay people, basing its hate on a few passages from the Bible that it interprets in controversial ways. The government must not deny gays rights based on this reading of the Bible. Holy books, after all, are notoriously open to different interpretations, and some people reject them entirely. The Bible is an important book to many Americans,
but that does not mean it was intended to be a manual for governance, any more than it is a science textbook (as assumed by the antievolution crowd).

  • Government-backed coercion in religious matters is always unacceptable. American society is multi-faith and multi-philosophy. It includes people of many different points of view. There is no generic, one-size-fits-all religion suitable for use by government. Mandated prayer has no place in our public schools or government meetings. The decision of how to pray, when to pray or if to pray must always be left to the individual.

  • Science and religion are not enemies. I believe God endowed us with reason. He intends for us to use it. We need not fear where science will lead us, as long as our exploration is informed by a moral sense that is found in all of the great religious and secular philosophies. (A guiding rule: Seek not to harm others.) Science and medicine must not be forced to bow to the dictates of religious factions. Science and religion are two different ways of understanding the universe. Religion rests on faith; science never can.

  • Federal laws regarding the role of religion in politics must be respected. Advocates of a progressive view of church and state must be careful not to repeat the mistakes of the Religious Right. Partisan politics has no place in any pulpit. People do not attend worship services to get a list of endorsed candidates. Biased voter guides that attack one candidate and praise another are an abomination. They have no place in our pews. Pastors can discuss issues. They need to refrain from endorsing or opposing candidates from the pulpit or using church resources to help or harm a candidate.

  An overriding principle ties together the progressive view on church and state: It is perfectly appropriate, and indeed necessary, for laws to have a secular rationale.' his means our nation is legally a secular state. We must not fear this. In fact, we must embrace it. Without the secular state, we are hopelessly at sea.