On Three Marks--Tooley, Hatfield and Malan

When I was in college in the 1980s one of the evangelical leaders who most shaped was a man by the name of Mark Malan. Mark, a leader in InterVarsity Christian Fellowship, was as committed an evangelical Christian as I have ever known. One of the stories I heard about Mark was that in his frustration over national politics in America in the 1970s and 1980s he had taken to casting his vote for president by writing in the name Mark Hatfield, a legendary Senator from Oregon and an evangelical of international significance. I mention Hatfield because, as I said here a while back, I will be attending a conference on September 14 at Georgetown University very much in the spirit of the great Hatfield. The gathering, entitled “Evangelicals for Peace: A Summit on Christian Moral Responsibility in the 21^st Century”, interested me because it was being planned in part by the group “Evangelicals for Peace”. This new organization is one I came to learn about through Aaron Taylor. When he told me the reasons for the event and the people who were planning to come I knew I had to be there. Now, as the conference draws near, the planners and participants of the event are the subject of the kind of rhetorical hit-job that has become so sadly common on the Religious Right. Mark Tooley, President of the Institute on Religion and Democracy (IRD), has determined the real reasons for this event and published them under the headline “Evangelical Left Plots D.C. Pacifist Summit”. Here are the key claims Tooley makes against our gathering:

1. Tooley says we are “Determined to neutralize historically pro-national security evangelicals.”

2. He says we believe “evangelicals join most Americans in being too enthusiastic about defending the country rather than offering the preferred mournful apologies.”

3. He thinks the conference is “slanted towards voices prone to portraying America as the chief threat to peace in the world.”

4. He intuits that the conference will “primarily be a gabfest uninterested in deep moral reflection and instead seeking the rhetorical satisfaction of denouncing violence and its ostensibly wicked advocates.”

5. He determined that “the chief direction seems to be the attempted emasculation of evangelical support for a just and decent world that desperately requires American strategic strength.”

I want to thank Mark for his extraordinary ability to read code words and translate them into their actual meaning. I had no idea that these were the motives behind the conference, especially because the main description of the event says the following:

On Friday, September 14th a group of evangelical scholars, journalists, activists, and pastors are convening for the first ever Evangelicals for Peace summit. The stated goals of the summit are:

• To build and birth a network of evangelical scholars and activists committed to the pursuit of a Biblical, comprehensive, and proactive peace

• To reduce violence, work toward human flourishing, and prevent war

• To mobilize and educate a new generation of evangelicals committed to the pursuit of peace

• To convene a gathering of non-profit and pastoral leaders who are actively working for peace with justice throughout the world

• To give a special focus on peace as it relates to U.S. foreign policy

As I was trying to understand the disconnect between Mark’s translation of those goals into the language of America’s culture wars and scorched earth political discourse I came across a fascinating post that gave excellent historical background on the IRD and Tooley’s style of “analysis”. David Swartz, Professor of History at Asbury University, notes that Tooley’s opinions reflect the institutional bias of the IRD and its tactics of simplistic demonizing those it disagrees with. He offers this excerpt from his forthcoming book:

In 1983 conservative activists repeatedly disrupted a conference on peacemaking at Fuller Theological Seminary. During a workshop on Central America, one protester shouted his objection to evangelical accommodation with Communist totalitarianism until delegates ushered him out of the room. Another protester berated the 1,700 delegates from a balcony during a plenary session. When the disturbance brought the proceedings to a halt, the audience sang the hymn “Amazing Grace” to drown him out. A display table manned by the Institute for Religion and Democracy urged delegates to sign a “research report” accusing Senator Mark Hatfield and Sojourners’ Jim Wallis of advocating Soviet-style communism. These scenes and what they represented—an increasingly vocal and activist right-wing coalition of Christians—appalled progressive evangelicals.

When I first read Mark Tooley’s post I admit it discouraged me, but as I read this broader narrative in which the IRD once spoke of Mark Hatfield as “advocating Soviet-style communism” I am encouraged. If the IRD spoke of Mark in that way, and they speak of this gathering in an equally distorted way, then Evangelicals for Peace is in good company. My simple goal is to gather with other followers of the One who blessed peacemakers and to pray for a more faithful witness to Him.  

More on Metaxas/Cardinal Dolan and the African American Church

My earlier post on what I see as the serious historical amnesia present in the comments of many conservative evangelicals and Catholics with regard to the HHS Mandate has received some very helpful comments in private correspondence and on my facebook feed. I want to engage one particularly substantive response from a friend:

“I think you rightly point out that there have been laws restricting religious liberty in the African American church experience and thus to argue that such restrictions today are unique is to ignore that history. I agree. If one takes that same concern and applies it to the entirety of the African American experience one learns that the restrictions on the church were not really about religion but about race. Thus it makes me nervous to apply the argument as you have since it defines these issues as religious ones rather than racial ones. It is true that the racial issues in this case ended up restricting religion, but it may overplay the religious perspective. And since I think that religious issues are also being overplayed in the HHS discussion it ties back to that for me.”

I agree with the basic point and I don’t think it contradicts my post but rather fills it in with helpful context. I agree that the reason for the Slave Codes after Nat Turner’s rebellion was primarily fear of further rebellion that would upend the social order deeply rooted in racism. To what extent that fear was rooted in religious based discourse is debatable, and to what extent the religious arguments of Nat Turner and others were primary factors in rebellion is also debatable. My point was not to settle those important historical debates, but rather to make what I think is an unquestionable point-- in order to affect the policy goal of safeguarding the existing social order numerous states instituted laws that trampled all over any kind of conception of the First Amendment’s religious freedom protections. I am not saying they necessarily trampled on those rights for religious reasons, and I am certainly not saying it was only the religious rights of African Americans that were being denied them, but the many states did trample on those religious rights. And the extent to which they trampled on the religious rights of African American individuals and institutions was far more severe and extensive than what the HSS Mandate does. In terms of the Mandate itself, and the reasons for the narrow exemption, it might well be true that the intent of Obama Administration is not specifically to restrict religion but rather to fulfill a different policy goal—namely, free contraception for all. Nonetheless, in order to achieve that goal they are, I believe, violating the constitution’s protection of religious freedom. On that I agree with Dolan, Metaxas and others. Where we part company is in what I see as a disturbing ideological manipulation of history to pursue their “campaign” for religious freedom. Proclaiming themselves as unique victims in the history of religious freedom in America may be a good way to inflame their core constituencies, but it comes at a real price of intellectual integrity and respect for the deeper narratives of American history.

Frederick Douglass to Cardinal Dolan and Eric Metaxas

MEMO FROM BEYOND THE GRAVE

TO: Cardinal Dolan and Eric Metaxas

FROM: Frederick Douglass

SUBJECT: Religious Freedom in America

Gentlemen, it has come to my attention that in these United States of America something of a controversy has arisen around the First Amendment freedom of religion clause. I have heard your cries of injustice I must say that I agree with your concerns with regard to the HHS Mandate. It does seem that the current law would restrict religious freedom by narrowing the definition of religious organizations in an overly narrow way. However, I must say that I find your protestations about this injustice extraordinarily out or proportion to the history of religious freedom in this country. I saw on this newfangled thing called “twitter” that on June 16 Mr. Metaxas said he believes this mandate is an “unprecedented abridgment of religious freedom itself"and I know that Cardinal Dolan and many of his fellow Bishops have likewise portrayed this Mandate and its narrow definition of religious organizations in a similarly apocalyptic manner. It does make me wonder about the state of education in America and whether my grave fears about the loss of memory concerning African Americans in this land have come true. So allow me for just a moment to remind you of the state of religious freedom in this land back in my times on this earth.

You would do well to recall that the HHS Mandate you so rightly denounce has already made specific provisions for houses of worship and other specifically religious institutions to gain exemption. In fact, it would seem that your main gripe is that this exemption is too narrow. If that is your main concern, then how in God’s good Name can you compare this situation with the gravity of the situation that African American Churches faced in your land? Surely you know that we were not even given the control over our own churches and allowed to choose for ourselves our own religious traditions? Surely you are aware of a wave of legislation that followed Nat Turner’s Slave Rebellion? Here is how one of your current day scholars describes what my people faced in terms of restrictions on relgious freedom. Do you really think that what the HHS Mandate proposes is worse than this?

So, instead of abolishing slavery, Virginia decided to revise and severely strengthen its already existing slave codes so that the potential for another slave uprising would be almost impossible. Virginia’s new codes made patrols and militia stronger, eliminated slave schools, slave religious meetings, and slave preachers.8

The idea of abolition did not appeal to the other southern states, so they, like Virginia, passed new restrictive slave laws and codes in hopes of preventing another slave rebellion. States like Georgia and South Carolina heavily relied on slavery for their economic success and thus it was a crucial element to their well being, they could not just get rid of it…Southerners attempted to keep blacks enslaved and suppressed by making their already existing slave codes much harsher and by enacting new laws.10

After Turner’s rebellion, the actions and movements of slaves were severely monitored…Religious meetings or gatherings of slaves were also closely monitored. All blacks were forbidden to preach or hold religious meetings. In fact, in Georgia, a law was passed that forbade blacks to congregate and preach. The Act of December 23, 1833, Sec. 5, 1833 Ga. Laws 226, stated that “no person of color, whether free or slave, shall be allowed to preach to, exhort or join in any religious exercise, with any persons of color, either free or slave.” And if a slave or a free black was found preaching, he or she was “sentenced to be whipped and imprisoned at the discretion of the court: provided, such imprisonment shall not exceed six months, and no whipping shall exceed thirty-nine lashes.”12 If a black person wanted to attend a religious meeting, he or she could only do so at night with his or her master. They could also only receive religious instruction from their master as well.

“At the time of the old Prophet Nat, the colored folks was afraid to pray loud, for the whites threatened to punish ‘em dreadfully if the least noise was heard...if they heard any of the colored folks praying or singing a hymn, they would fall upon ‘em and abuse ‘em and sometimes kill ‘em. The brightest and best was killed in Nat’s time”.–Lydia Maria Child, a slave during Nat Turner’s rebellion.13

Laws such as this were enforced because whites feared that if blacks were given an opportunity to congregate and preach together, as they had with Nat Turner, then another insurrection could possibly occur. Many southern whites believed that the black preachers were filling the minds of slaves with notions of freedom and equality. They believed that the black preachers were teaching slaves that blacks should have just as much rights as whites and that “the black man was as good as the white man...and that all men were born free and equal.” The preachers were also accused of preaching that “white people had rebelled against England to gain their freedom and so had the blacks a right to do so”. The black preachers were also accused of circulating abolitionists pamphlets, some of which had been written by the great abolitionist, William Lloyd Garrison. A portion of the black population was able to read these pamphlets because they had been taught how to read by their masters and because they had attended school. Thus, several states, including Virginia, North Carolina, and Alabama, passed laws that forbade slaves and free blacks form learning how to read and write.14

Catholic Bishops and Muslim Liberty

[PART TWO OF THIS POST HERE]

I recently wrote an article for Commonweal about the Bishops’ statement on religious freedom and its failure to address the important issue of so-called anti-Shariah legislation. At the conclusion of the article I expressed hope that the bishops would address this glaring oversight and show themselves to be the true champions of religious freedom of all Americans that they claim in their statement. If they were going to show increased awareness of and sensitivity for the religious rights of Muslims the General Assembly of the USCCB, now taking place in Atlanta, would have been an ideal time for it. Occurring just days before the start of the much publicized “Fortnight for Freedom”, this Assembly represents the ideal public forum for the bishops to get their message out and demonstrate the compassion and competency we have reason to expect from them at this critical moment. Instead, what we have already seen is further evidence of the ignorance and bigotry which I warned about in my article. 

As Michael Sean Winters has pointed out, in yesterday’s afternoon session Bishop Lori, the leader of the Bishops Committee on Religious Freedom, and John Garvey, President of Catholic University of America and a leading lay spokesman for the Fortnight of Freedom, addressed the bishops on the topic of the HHS Mandate. At the conclusion of their address they took questions. The first question was from Bishop Bruskewitz of the Lincoln, Nebraska Diocese. His question and Bishop Lori and President Garvey’s response come at the 1:31 mark of this video, but I have transcribed them below:

Bishop Bruskewitz:

I haven’t had a chance to read the Obamacare Protection Act, but somebody told me that there is a total exemption from Muslims in the back of that Act that all Muslims are exempt because insurance for Muslims is a type of gambling which is contrary to the Koran and therefore Muslims are not obliged in anyway to observe the insurance mandate which derives from the act. I’m not sure if that’s true or not, but I just want to know if any of you know anything about it.

Bishop Lori:

Bishop, you must have got a lot further in that act than I did (laughter). I don’t really know.

John Garvey, President, Catholic University of America

I wish I could say more. We should ask the lawyers. I used to be a lawyer, but I just act it now. (laughter)

Let's be perfectly clear—there is absolutely no substance to the question Bruskewitz asked about some sort of conspiracy to let Muslims off the hook from the Affordable Care Act. It is, frankly, the kind of urban myth legend that one sees trumpeted at the most ignorant of websites and it has been thoroughly debunked at numerous fact checking sites for over two years. That we have a Catholic bishop giving voice to these kinds of questions is sad enough, but perhaps to be expected coming from someone as notorious as Bishop Bruskewitz. What we should not expect, and what we should in fact be concerned about, is the ignorance of Lori and Garvey. Here are the two men at the forefront of the bishops’ efforts to convey competence and compassion to the Catholic community and the broader public. They regularly trumpet the notion that the bishops’ efforts are for the common good of all Americans. And yet in the face of a question advancing the supposition that an entire religious group is receiving the exemptions the Catholic community is supposedly being denied, they have nothing more to say than “we don’t know”? This is beyond absurd, it is scandalous. Bishop Lori--you really don't know if the document you have spent the better part of the last 18 months criticizing does or does not allow for an entire religious group to exempt itself from its reach? Then why should we trust your judgments about the President's actions on religious freedom? Why should we trust your stated commitment to represent religious freedom for all, when you are ignorant of even the most basic facts related to a major religious group and its standing before the very law that you have made your reputation upon criticizing? 

We have a right to expect better, or we have a duty to question the real agenda of the bishops. If the best the bishops have to offer is creepy, conspiratorial questions that reflect the very worst of anti-Muslim conspiracy thinking, and/or vacuous responses like Lori and Garvey's, then we are either faced with incompetence or subtle acceptance of bigotry. Either choice is sad. As Winters puts it: "Perhaps at today's session, Bishop Bruskewitz can ask the bishop of Honolulu if he has really seen Obama's birth certificate."

[Further thoughts on these issues at this new post]

Civil Rights, Abortion and Other Light Topics!

Civil Rights, Abortion/Conscience, Elizabeth Warren and a Few other Light Topics!!

I have been focused on C. Peter Wagner and the controversies he has invited upon himself, but a few stories more directly related to debating Obama are happening and this post is on those topics.

FRED SHUTTLESWORTH AND WILLIAM NORVEL

Another civil rights lion has passed away, the Rev. Fred Shuttlesworth. Duane Shank has a nice tribute to him at God’s Politics, noting that Shuttlesworth “helped organize and participate in most of the most significant events of the Civil Rights struggle. He was one of the founding members of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference in 1957, participated in the first sit-ins in 1960 and the Freedom Rides in 1961.” Rather than attempting to add my halting words of tribute to him, I thought it would be fitting to use his passing as an occasion to introduce people to another African American Christian leader who I just learned about yesterday. The Washington Post had an excellent article yesterday about the Rev. William Norvel:

A native of Pascagoula, Miss., Norvel is considered by black Catholics across the country as a peacemaker who looks like them, understands their issues and has advocated on their behalf before an often unresponsive church hierarchy. His elevation increases the profile of black Catholics, a small group among the nation’s 77 million Catholics…“For 350 years, African Americans have been in this church, and we are not going anywhere,” said Turner, of the Archdiocese of Washington. “This is our church. We belong to it, and we will nourish the faith.”

PRO-LIFE DEMOCRAT SENATOR CASEY URGES OBAMA TO CHANGE COURSE

The group Democrats for Life of America, which I am a proud member of, is urging its members to back Senator Casey of Pennsylvania who has written a letter to the Obama administration seeking “to ensure that ‘no religious organization’ will be ‘compelled to take actions that violate their conscience rights’ under the Affordable Care Act.” Pro-life Democrats like me have been mocked for supporting Obama, who Robert George has consistently called the most pro-abortion president in American history, and the full dimensions of that debate was the subject of a lengthy cover story in Commonweal’s last issue. I have joined other pro-life Democrats in arguing that with respect to the recently passed Affordable Care Act, charges that it is pro-abortion are without merit because it “does not fund abortion and, in fact, provides clear provisions to disallow abortion funding.” A more complicated question, in my view, is the one that Casey has written his letter about—namely, how to protect the consciences of individuals and institutions that received federal funding but do not want to provide contraceptive services, some of which we believe cause the death of new embryos. In addition to Casey’s letter, “An ad hoc group of 15 Catholic leaders and professors, including Democrats For Life executive director Kristen Day…sent a letter to Secretary Sebelius on August 25, 2011 also asking for broader protections.” These requests from pro-life Democrats reflect our sincere belief that these conscience protections serve the common good of all Americans and reflect the deepest truths of our Constitutional order. We hope the President will agree.