The Not So Common Faith Practice:

Pursuing Justice
Rev.ChuckBentjen,J.D.1
“We also are a people compelled by justice. Jesus called justice one of the ‘weightier matters of
the law,’ too often neglected by religious
people (Matthew 23:23). Our search for
justice is a call from God, a concern
especially for the ‘rights of the needy’
(Jeremiah 5:28).” A Social Statement on
Health Care: Our Shared Endeavor

“He has told you, O Mortal, what is good;

and what does the Lord require of you but
to do justice, to love kindness, and to walk
humbly with your God?” Micah 6:8
 Introduction

This paper is written in response to more than four years of visioning, research, discussion and
planning for mission by and among the members of the Justice Ministries Committee of the
Nebraska Synod of the ELCA and others through both formal and informal processes. I offer it in
celebration of the more than 20 years of work done by Justice and Advocacy Ministries2 in Nebraska
and with the recognition that we are called to be faithful and yet changing. Consistent with that
understanding I acknowledge this is an ongoing process that requires continued honest reflection
and development.

It is further developed in response to the Design for Mission through the Churchwide Organization of
the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America. In particular it is developed in response to a sincere
desire and commitment to be an effective instrument of a “church that steps forward as a public
church that witnesses boldly to all that God has created, seeking to promote justice, peace, and the
care of the earth.”

I feel a strong calling to raise my voice. Though I do my best to justify my thoughts, positions and
conclusions in this paper, I’m confident there are parts in which I may sound overly critical of the
church or parts of it. That’s not my intent. Nonetheless, in my many years of learning what it means
to raise my voice, I’ve discovered that doing so often comes with a price. So to be perfectly honest,
I’d prefer not to, but . . .

About the Title

I’ve been uncertain about where to put an explanation of the title to this paper. I began thinking an
endnote would be a good place for such information. But I think the explanation is so critical to
understanding the basic premise from which I am writing that it warrants space at the beginning.

I’m on a lifelong personal quest to answer the question, “What does it mean to live out one’s faith?”
Somewhere along the road, I paused and reflected on some materials offered by my church, the
ELCA. I found those materials at http://archive.elca.org/init/teachthefaith/7practices.html. Those
materials tell me:

“Followers of Jesus are inspired to develop practices and patterns for living that characterize a life
that is devoted to daily discipleship. Seven common practices have been identified as key to model
and nurture.” The materials list those seven common practices as: Prayer, Study, Worship,
Invitation, Encouragement, and Service.

As I do with most things, I pondered that statement for a while before I simply jumped into adopting
those practices and patterns as the definitive answer. Certainly, I cannot argue with any of those
practices and patterns and believe they are of great value to living out one’s call to discipleship. But
it seems to me there are some key faith practices missing from the list.

During my time of reflection (which, by the way, is ongoing), I also re-discovered the Baptismal
Covenant. That covenant, recited by all ELCA Confirmands in the celebration of their Affirmation of
Baptism, provides: You have made public profession of your faith. Do you intend to continue in the
covenant God made with you in Holy Baptism:
  To live among God’s faithful people,
 To share in God’s Word and supper
 To proclaim the good news of God in Christ through word and deed,
 To serve all people, following the example of our Lord Jesus,
 And to strive for justice and peace in all the earth?

But I did not connect or even compare the seven common faith practices to the Baptismal Covenant.
That all changed at a conference in which I was participating related to justice and health care.
During one of the discussions, I heard someone argue that pursuing justice is not one of the seven
common faith practices. Without thought I heard myself responding, “But what about the Baptismal
Covenant?” The other person, a faithful church person, leader and the son of a pastor, was not
familiar with the Baptismal Covenant. It intrigued me that my friend could recite the seven common
faith practices but claimed he had never heard of the Baptismal Covenant. So I started examining
the two a little more closely. Then some other things happened that stirred my thinking.

First, I presented a workshop on God’s call to do and seek justice at a meeting of the Women of the
ELCA in Nebraska. The meeting started with worship. In his message, the Pastor talked about the
seven common faith practices. I found myself wondering about the same question I had raised at
the earlier conference: “But what about the Baptismal Covenant?”

Second, I read three marvelous books at the same time (I often read more than one book at a time –
a bad habit). The first was Freakonomics: A Rogue Economist Explores the Hidden Side of
Everything by Steven D. Levitt and Stephen J. Dubner. One of the things I discovered through this
work is that if we look closely enough, we can see cause and effect dependencies between things
that otherwise do not appear to be even remotely connected. The second book was Manna and
Mercy: God’s Unfolding Promise to Mend the Entire Universe by Rev. Daniel J. Erlander. In that
work I was particularly drawn to a new insight on humankind’s almost unquenchable desire to hoard
manna and forsake mercy to the detriment of all God’s creation. The third book was actually a re-
read of The Cost of Discipleship by Dietrich Bonhoeffer. During this particular reading of that book, I
concentrated on the Baptismal Covenant, Erlander’s work and God’s call to seek and do justice.

As a result I began to see more clearly some cause and effect connections between the way we live
out our lives in the name of Christ and poverty, genocide, war, hunger, disease and even natural
disasters or at least our responses to them. While I see a fair amount of charity, I see little justice. In
fact, in many cases I see the opposite – injustice – being perpetrated by pubic policies hailed to be
based on Judeo-Christian values.3 How does that happen? Does not God, through the prophet
Micah, tell us to “do justice, love mercy and walk humbly with God?” What are we missing?

With the exception of “prayer,” none of the seven common faith practices lifted up by the church
relate to the baptismal promise to strive for justice and peace in all the earth. One might argue that
“encourage” and “serve” come close, but they are woefully incomplete.

So what does that tell us if anything? It might tell us that we, as a church, have not focused much
time, energy or many resources on defining what it means to strive for justice and peace in all the
earth. It might say that we are so uncomfortable with justice and peace that we avoid even
discussing it. But I believe it primarily says that pursuing justice and peace is not, as Martin Luther
would put it, a “habit of the heart.” In other words pursuing justice and peace is “not organic to our
lives as members of the church.”4 Thus, while striving for justice and peace is something we affirm
2
we will do as baptized children of God, we just don’t seem to give what it means to do that much
thought. It is not that we do not want to strive for justice and peace or, even at times, work hard at it.
So, I cannot say striving for justice and peace is not a “faith practice” of the church or members of it.
But, without question, the practice simply is not part of our culture as the body of Christ known as
Lutheran Christians. I argue that not only should it be common, it should be so common that it
happens without thought. Hopefully, this effort will plant some seeds on good soil.

Chuck Bentjen
God’s Call to Seek and Do Justice

The call to seek and do justice is grounded in baptism and expressed in the covenant God makes
with us in holy baptism “to strive for justice and peace in all the earth.”5 At first blush that seems so
basic to our way of life as Americans that we might not even consider it necessary to raise Luther’s
oft repeated phrase, “and what does this mean for us.” The political socialization process in the
United States teaches us that we are a nation that promotes “liberty and justice for all.” In fact those
concepts are so important to us they are codified in various places in our nation’s Constitution and
Bill of Rights and branded in our hearts through ritual recitations of such things as the pledge of
allegiance to the flag and the song God Bless America. Indeed, many Americans defend the
concept of this linkage between God and country with intense fervor.

Many argue, therefore, that Americans are born into a society steeped in an ongoing pursuit of
justice. But is the American understanding of “justice for all” the same as God’s call to seek and do
justice? Arguably, at least, most Americans, including Lutheran Christians, simply assume that to be
the case and do not give the question much thought. Such assumptions are incredibly dangerous
because they easily lead us down a slippery slope to civil religion and worship of state. The late
Rowland Sherrill, former chair of the Religious Studies Department at Indiana University, Purdue,
Indianapolis, discussed American civil religion in a FAC Conference on September 23, 2002. He
said,6

American civil religion is a form of devotion, outlook and commitment that deeply and
widely binds the citizens of the nation together with ideas they possess and express
about the sacred nature, the sacred ideals, the sacred character, and sacred
meanings of their country. . . There is a religious aura and coloration in the ways many
Americans think about, live within and operate in relation to their ideas of their country
as sacred entity. People believe the country has been specially blessed by God, and
that means they, the Americans, have been blessed. America and Americans,
therefore, have a special place and role in the world and in human history.

Comparisons between the American civil religion Sherrill described in his speech and the civil
religion to which the prophet Amos spoke should quickly come to mind. If they do not, they will as
one reads the first paragraph to the introduction to the Book of Amos in the New Oxford Annotated
Bible, NSRV:7

3
 During the long and peaceful reign of Jeroboam II (786-746 BC) Israel attained a
height of . . . national prosperity never again reached. The military security and
economic affluence which characterized this age were taken by many Israelites as
signs of the Lord’s special favor that they felt they deserved because of their
extravagant support of the official shrines.

With that in mind we can then dig into and digest Amos’ words. Visualize the scene in which Amos
delivers his opening remarks to the people of Israel. He begins his speech very cleverly by pointing
out the transgressions of the people of the lands surrounding Israel. One can see the people puffing
up with pride and vigorously nodding their heads in agreement. Then he delivers the fatal blow. 8

6
Thus says the Lord: For three transgressions of Israel, and for four, I will not revoke
the punishment; because they sell the righteous for silver, and the needy for a pair of
sandals— 7they who trample the head of the poor into the dust of the earth, and push
the afflicted out of the way; father and son go in to the same girl, so that my holy name
is profaned; 8they lay themselves down beside every altar on garments taken in
pledge; and in the house of their God they drink wine bought with fines they imposed.

Now one sees a much different reaction. Suddenly the agreement turns to disgust and disdain as
the people ask, “How could anyone make such ridiculous claims against Israel? We are special to
God. We are on God’s side.” But, despite the probable laughter, scorn, ridicule and hostility from
the people, Amos continues his dialectic on God’s behalf:9

“I hate, I despise your festivals,

and I take no delight in your solemn assemblies.
22
Even though you offer me your burnt offerings and grain offerings,
I will not accept them;
and the offerings of well-being of your fatted animals
I will not look upon.
23
Take away from me the noise of your songs;
I will not listen to the melody of your harps.
24
But let justice roll down like waters,
and righteousness like an ever-flowing stream.

While one can and should debate my insinuation that American civil religion is comparable to the civil
religion of Israel to which Amos spoke, there are clear correlations between the economic inequities
and religious pride Amos addressed and the economic inequities and religious pride that currently
exist in the United States. In his marvelous work, Manna and Mercy, A Brief History of God’s
Unfolding Promise to Mend the Entire Universe Rev. Daniel Erlander explains the political, economic
and religious conditions of Amos’ time. They sound remarkably similar to the political, economic and
religious conditions of our time. He writes:10

4
 The people . . . left their true partner and leader, the liberator God, and worshipped
their manna piles . . . More and more the rich exploited the poor, practicing neither
righteousness nor mercy. By bribery and cheating the rich added house to house and
field to field. They even began to think they earned and deserved and owned their
land and riches . . . The majority spent their days grabbing, securing, and protecting
their manna piles. The land was filled with avarice, distrust, loneliness, alienation and
covetousness. Some had too much; some had too little – and the society smelled foul.
Did they continue to worship Yahweh? They certainly did . . . but they did not worship
to incorporate themselves into the life of the liberator God. Instead, the performed
‘correct’ religious actions as a way of manipulating the deity into sending good fortune.
Yahweh cried out, ‘Your religious rituals make me sick!’

Amazingly even those who seem to be most negatively affected by current economic and public
policies in the United States seem to believe that they should support those public policies as an act
of faith. (See e.g., What’s the Matter with Kansas,11) It seems Americans are convinced they should
vote contrary to their own interests based on the growth of a civil religion that focuses on what law
professor and theologian Susan Pace Hamill identifies as a “low-sacrifice operation.”12 She writes:

Given that nearly eighty percent of Americans claim to adhere to Christianity or

Judaism in some form, why is our tax policy at both the national and state levels
continue to move further away from reflecting genuine Judeo-Christian values? The
scarcity of faith-based ethical reflection in justice concerns, which includes tax policy,
is a symptom that religion as a viable and authentic conviction with a principled moral
compass is in deep trouble–the practice of Christianity in particular has become a low-
sacrifice operation. What passes for faith-based ethics, beyond matters of personal
piety, has become centered on a few highly emotional and theologically divisive issues
that for most people involve little or no direct personal sacrifice. Although these issues
raise significant theological concerns where reasonable people of faith can, and do,
passionately disagree, elevating these issues to be of supreme importance while
ignoring the high degree of sacrifice required by the clear biblical mandates of justice
perverts faith into a meaningless and hollow ritual.13

Let us examine Professor Hamill’s analysis a little more deeply. To do that we’ll take a hot-button
phrase: “one nation, under God, with liberty and justice for all”. Whether that phrase should be
included in the pledge of allegiance to flag of the United States raises profound emotions among
Americans. Atheists argue that including the phrase violates the First Amendment’s guarantee that
the state will not establish a state religion. Many if not a majority of Christian Americans adamantly
argue that excluding the phrase is leading the United States further and further down a path away
from God.

But let’s raise Professor Hamill’s question: what’s at stake – personal piety or direct personal
sacrifice. In either case does including or excluding the phrase cost anyone anything other than
advancing the piety of their particular belief system? If the atheists lose this battle does it really
mean a state established religion? If the Christians lose it is there any personal loss or sacrifice, e.
g., will the ability to share their message be lost? Will the outcome of the debate cost anyone their
life or their religious freedom? Clearly not. And yet such pursuits consume not only a great deal of
5
time and emotion among those raising the issues, but they also consume a lot of valuable official
time, energy and emotion that could be used in the pursuit of those things that would truly make us a
nation under God with liberty and justice for all.

So if the late Professor Sherrill, Reverend Erlander, Mr. Frank, and Professor Hamill are correct in
their analyses that the American understanding of “justice for all” and God’s call through the
baptismal covenant to “strive for justice and peace in all the world,” are not inherently synonymous,
we must indeed ask that very Lutheran question about God’s call to seek and do justice, “and what
does this mean for us”.

Defining Justice
We can begin our effort to answer that question by attempting to define the word justice using Judeo-
Christian values. This is difficult because it not only involves deeply intense spiritual, philosophical,
theological, and sometimes painful self examination; it also requires us to enter into potentially
adversarial, conflicting and divisive dialogue – something we seem to want to avoid in church.
Further, it requires us to wrestle with such topics as tax policy, economic theory, environmental
issues, race, ethnicity, prosperity, poverty, morality, political freedom, rights, responsibilities, and
theological differences – among others.

Rev. George S. Johnson offers a marvelously concise and easy to read yet profound Christian
understanding of justice in his book Beyond Guilt: Christian Response to Human Suffering. Like
many faithful people, Johnson recognized his call to ordained ministry at a relatively young age. He
attended seminary, was ordained and called to serve as a pastor. Like most pastors, Rev. Johnson
was certainly aware of God’s call through the baptismal covenant to “strive for justice and peace”
through all the earth. But he never gave that call much thought.

All of that changed when Rev. Johnson returned to the School of Theology in Claremont, California
for some graduate studies. During one term, Rev. Johnson was limited in his course options. Much
to his chagrin he ended up in a class on hunger and the Christian response. He was not happy to be
there. He was a busy man – a successful pastor. But as Johnson had done all of his life he allowed
God to speak to him through the experience and he listened. The course ended up shaping his call
such that striving for justice and peace throughout all the earth became and remains the primary
focus of not only his ministry but his entire life.

Through his book, Johnson offers an insightful and easily understood explanation of the complexities
of what it means to strive for justice and peace in all the earth. With each passing chapter Johnson
carefully takes the reader on a journey from where a majority of us are in our understanding to a
whole new place and beyond. For example under the heading “Discipleship and Celebration”
Johnson moves us from struggle to celebration, from believing to following, from silence to speech,
from priest to priesthood, from urgency to patience and from weeping to singing.

While the entire book is commendable, the section called “Reflection and Discovery” is the most
important for the purposes of this paper. Johnson begins the section with a chapter called, “From
Charity to Justice.” He opens the chapter with a beautiful story about his teenage daughter during
the 1960s. Rev. Johnson and his wife delayed purchasing a color TV. They finally decided to take
the plunge and set aside the money to do so. Johnson writes: 14

6
 Then one morning our oldest daughter came down for breakfast and said, “Why don’t
we take the money for our color TV and give it to our church’s hunger appeal instead.”
I was pleasantly surprised, almost blown away. After carefully asking some questions
to find out where the change of attitude came from, I discovered that the night before
she had watched a TV program put on by World Vision. Seeing children suffer and die
for lack of nourishment moved her to tears and she wanted to do something about it.
Whenever the hunger crisis gets the attention of the media, offerings go up. People
want to help.

So far, there’s nothing offered to give anyone any new insight. A young woman saw the effects of hunger and
wanted to help. But Johnson continues, “Of course, I wanted to affirm our daughter’s desire to give some money
to the hunger appeal; what I found challenging was to help her move from charity to justice, prophetic justice.”15
So what’s the difference? Johnson explains: 16

There is a saying that helps to explain this challenge to work for justice, not just for
charity. It goes like this: “If people are hungry you can give them some fish and they
will live another day. It’s called relief. But if you not only give a fish, but teach them
how to fish for themselves they will be helped to feed themselves in the future.” This is
often called development. That sounds good but it can be misleading if it is not
followed with the next step. There is a third part of that saying that is critical to our
efforts to move beyond guilt. We must not only offer the fish (relief) and assistance in
knowing how to fish themselves (development), but we must move over in the pond
and give them a place to fish. “

But what does it mean to “move over in the pond and give them a place to fish”? Let’s take a careful
look at an example. In the example, we’ll call the pond “Wealth,” and the community surrounding it,
“Wealthtown.” In Wealth we find all of the resources available to Wealthtown and the surrounding
community as a whole. Let’s assume 95% of Wealth is owned, managed and fished by about three
percent of citizens of the community. The remaining five percent is owned by people of moderate or
middle income, approximately 77% of the total population. The rest of the people have no place at
or access to Wealth. They must buy, beg for, borrow17 or steal their fish from those who own,
manage and fish the pond. They have little or no say in how Wealth is managed yet they must share
in the consequences if the pond is mismanaged, polluted or depleted. The consequences of
mismanagement, pollution, or depletion, however, are more costly for them because they are much
less likely to have access to the resources necessary to deal with the consequences of
mismanagement than are those who caused the problems in the first place.

Now let’s apply our Lutheran understanding of sin to the model. We can assume some of the people
who control the resources are most willing to share and are quite generous. However, because of
sin and self-justification, there would likely be very few willing to move over and offer a place at the
pond. There are way too many self interests that get in the way. In other words, many would ponder
how much they could afford to offer without having to modify their own life styles but very few would
likely be willing to radically alter their life styles, which moving over and sharing would require, for the
sake of others.

7
Others of those who control the resources would likely argue those who are without are at fault for
being without. People with this mindset rarely offer to even share and vehemently argue they should
not be required to do so. Most certainly people with this belief system are not willing to move over
and offer a place at the pond. Finally, we would likely see a majority of people who control access to
the pond and the resources therein being too busy with their own lives, work and economic stability
or instability to even notice there are those without. When crises strikes they are likely to swing one
way or the other but would likely never even dream of offering a place at the pond because that
would require such radical change.

Likely over time we would see more people being pushed away from the shore as the five percent
add more of “Wealth” to their already vast holdings. This pushes more of those in between those
with the most and those without closer to the edges of being without. Further, it’s likely we would see
some of the people without held in slavery and forced to work for those with vast holdings at the
pond without pay and only enough food and water to keep them alive enough to work. It is also likely
we would see countless others from the masses working diligently in horrific conditions just to
survive. Finally, we would likely see those who profit the most from Wealth’s resources going out
into the world in search of more ponds throughout the world.18

If the foregoing discussion leads one to believe that a Judeo-Christian understanding of justice or
injustice is strictly tied to economic well-being, he or she would be mistaken. The concept of justice
is much deeper than that. But, because our lives are so linked to who we are in relation to a growing
global economy, injustice, from a Judeo-Christian perspective, is most visible in our economic lives.
Injustice itself is fueled by sin, which Lutherans understand to be the result of being turned in on
oneself. Sin looks to self first. It does not and cannot love. It cannot even love self.

The Resulting Poverty

Two kinds of poverty thrive in these conditions. The first is quite easy to see and describe. It is the
poverty caused by the lack of resources or access to them. We can refer to this poverty as the
poverty of economic disadvantage. People affected by this kind of poverty have little control over
their situations, and they are desperate for the basic relief necessary to survive. They often have to
trade off such things as health care for food or food for housing or basic safety. People living in this
kind of poverty are often angry or even desperate so they use whatever means they can to get out of
their poverty.

Children who grow up in this type of poverty grow up amidst the desperation it brings. They suffer
from lack of adequate health care, food and access to education. They are often steeped in violence
and the consequences of violence. They are aware of the need for resources to which they have no
access. They strongly desire those resources and will often use whatever means necessary to
obtain them. It is extremely difficult, though, for them to reach the pond because those who own the
pond put up all sorts of barriers to keep them away.

The other type of poverty is often overlooked. It is best described as a “poverty of abundance.”19
The poverty of abundance is a spiritual poverty that is far more dangerous than the other kind of
poverty because it is deceptive and much more complex to understand. Most who live in this type of
poverty would never even consider themselves to be living in poverty at all. It is a poverty that
worships a god of consumerism. People trapped in this kind of poverty already have a piece of the
pond and benefit from the yield the pond has to offer. But the god of consumerism preaches to them
8
they need more. So they seek more – sometimes honestly and morally and other times not so
honestly or morally. It is difficult for people living in this type of poverty to understand how their
worship of consumerism so profoundly affects those living in the other type of poverty. Many people
who live in this type of poverty are very charitable and generous. Much like George Johnson’s
teenage daughter when people who live in the poverty of abundance truly see the effects of the other
poverty they want to help in some way. Some will even work for and assist with development. But,
as pointed out above, very few are willing to take any personal responsibility for it, and even fewer
are willing to move over and share the pond. People who live in the poverty of abundance will do
almost anything to remain in their state of poverty.

Children who grow up in the poverty of abundance have access to quality health care, more than
adequate food and the best education money can buy. From an early age they are taught to pursue
success and to measure that success by how much they make and the things they have or are able
to buy, which results in its own violence. They are taught to value hard work. They are taught to
excel in all they do. To find the love they so desperately seek people living in the poverty of
abundance buy more, accumulate more of “the pond” or to seek more power. They often turn to
violence or at least justify violence as a means to keep that which their parents, grandparents and
others like them worked so hard to attain.

Those who live in the poverty of abundance have control over the resources it takes to obtain
political power, and thus, they control public policy throughout the entire area. While many of those
who obtain political power do so with the best intentions, they are trapped in a climate of temptation.
The public policy solutions they then offer to address the poverty of economic disadvantage are to: 1)
offer themselves financial incentives that theoretically will stimulate the entire economy creating jobs
which will go to those living in the poverty caused by lack of resources, 2) create entitlement
programs that fall short of providing the resources necessary for those living in the first kind of
poverty to rise above it, 3) do nothing other than blame those who live in the first kind of poverty for
their own plight, 4) turn a blind eye to it or 5) rely totally on charitable organizations to address it.
While some of these possible solutions offer some resources from the pond of wealth to those
trapped in the poverty of economic disadvantage none of them even come close to offering them a
place at the pond itself.

The Gulf Coast Disasters

Let’s look at a more “concrete” example. When hurricanes Katrina and Rita swooped in and
devastated New Orleans and the Gulf Coast, people from all walks of life faced the potential
devastation. The storms did not care about whether the people it hit were people living in the poverty
of economic disadvantage or the poverty of abundance. The storms simply did not discriminate.
But let’s look at the conditions of both groups before the storms hit, the response to the storms and
the resulting public policy debates.

Those living in the poverty of abundance at least had the opportunity to choose to leave before the
storms hit, and they had the necessary resources to do so. Further, they were more likely to own
property and to have all the necessary insurance to protect that property – even if that insurance was
insufficient to help them completely recover. When they temporarily lost access to that property, they
were provided with emergency relief including housing (inadequate though it may have been), food
stamps and other assistance.

9
Those living in the poverty of economic disadvantage, on the other hand, were completely
dependent upon others for their safety and well being. Some, like nursing home residents, simply
died because there was no one to move them to safety. Others who were able to make it to safety
lived in horrific conditions inside the Superdome completely and totally dependent upon the
generosity of others for their very survival.20

The charitable response to this devastation has been incredible. Many volunteers risked life and
limb to go to the area to help with relief efforts. Many others have gone since to help rebuild. For the
most part it does not appear that the charity offered discriminates in any way. In other words, those
living in the poverty of abundance are offered the same charitable services as those living in the
poverty of economic disadvantage.

The public policy debate is much more nebulous. Clearly, there are questions and investigations into
governments’ responses or lack thereof. In fact was our entire policy focus in relation to this
catastrophe. It is natural to look that close to the surface to try to determine who is to blame because
we want to ensure that someone is blamed. But the greater challenge is to go deeper and ask those
questions that none of us want to ask but as Christians must ask. How is it that we allowed the
public policy norm to be one in which there exists such a huge disparity between the choices those
with and those without had to even escape the pending storm? What about the public policy choices
that are being made in rebuilding the city? Do those choices favor those living in the poverty of
abundance over those living in the poverty of economic disadvantage? There are significant
concerns as plans for rebuilding the city do not include rebuilding some of the poorer neighborhoods.

What a majority of us who offer a charitable response to this disaster probably do not or are not
willing to consider is that even though we are willing to offer a caring and helpful hand, public policy
choices that we supported or to which we acquiesced with our inattention or lack of concern cost
people their lives in this disaster. Shortly after the disaster we had the opportunity to step up to the
plate to oppose federal budget cuts to such programs as Medicaid, housing, food stamps and
education. At the same time Congress was debating making tax cuts that will benefit three percent
of the wealthiest Americans the most. Despite the valiant efforts of the church, individual members
of the church and others, both measures passed.21 Now those who are the wealthiest have the
opportunity to make greater gains and profits. Those who are in the middle of the economic
spectrum carry a greater share of the burden and those who are already without will go without more
(the last phrase will make a great deal of sense if one contemplates it a little).

Slavery and Oppression

If poverty is lurking in the murky darkness, slavery and oppression cannot be far away as the three
are symbiotic. But just like we do with poverty, we place slavery and oppression in nice and tidy little
frames that help us easily capture a picture that while horrific is manageable. However, we must
zoom in and take a closer look.

All of us can easily point out instances of slavery and oppression. Such examples as human
bondage, forced labor and apartheid quickly come to mind. We can place those not so nice pictures
in our frames in which we can clearly and easily identify them in safety. What we do not so readily
see, however, is how smudged the edges of those pictures are outside of our frames. The desire,
reasoning behind and willingness to use human bondage, forced labor and apartheid are the results
of another type of bondage. In fact, a number of us confess that bondage weekly when we say, “We
confess that we are in bondage to sin and cannot free ourselves. . .” We might as well say that we
10
are “oppressed” by sin. Unfortunately, when we say that most of us probably do not see the
relationship between that oppression and the oppression we have set aside in our nice frames. Yet
the two are inextricably woven together. The result is that we can go to church, worship and praise
God, denounce oppression, dance for justice and go home and support, vote for and implement
public policies that defame God, enhance oppression and are unjust without ever making the
connection. Systematic Theologian Ted Peters argues that we even go beyond that. He posits we
“self-justify” such behavior. He writes22:

Self-justification is our term for drawing the line between good and evil so that we can
place ourselves on the good side. We have a strong, perhaps irresistible, desire to
justify ourselves. It begins with the classic, “I didn’t steal the cookie. My brother did it.”
The child thief wants to appear just and good in the eyes of his or her mother.

Blaming one’s brother for putting a hand in the cookie jar continues in disguised form
when we become grown-ups. It takes the form of an ideology of high-minded political
values such as freedom or democracy or prosperity or even God’s blessing to justify
going to war and reigning death and destruction on villages in foreign lands. In
between cookies and bombs, we engage daily in gossip, wherein the victim of our
gossip is placed on the evil side of the line and we, obviously, demonstrate the wisdom
of knowing the difference between good and evil. No matter what the level of damage,
we draw a line between good and evil and place ourselves on the good side. This is
how sin has worked from the time of Adam and Eve to the present; and this is how we
can expect it to work for the foreseeable future.

Liberation
Liberation theologians have long recognized the connections between injustice, poverty, slavery
and oppression. In response they developed the theory that God has a “preferential option for
the poor” which essentially posits, “[a]s followers of Christ, we are challenged to make a
preferential option for the poor, namely, to create conditions for marginalized voices to be heard,
to defend the defenseless, and to assess lifestyles, policies and social institutions in terms of
their impact on the poor. The option for the poor does not mean pitting one group against
another, but rather, it calls us to strengthen the whole community by assisting those who are
most vulnerable.”23

It’s a compelling theory that makes good sense and is, arguably, rooted in scripture. A good
example is Luke 4:18-20 in which Jesus proclaimed he came to bring good news to the poor,
proclaim release for the captives, and to let the oppressed go free. But we must be cautious about
our use of language, and thus, in defining who the “poor,” “captives,” “blind” and “oppressed” about
whom Jesus is speaking are. Our tendency is to look inside of our frames and include only those
who are economically poor, imprisoned by injustice, physically blind, and obviously oppressed in our
definitions. However, that is only a part of the picture. Though they may not be economically
disadvantaged those living in the poverty of abundance are every bit as “poor” and in need of Christ’s
liberation as those who are economically disadvantaged. The liberation needed, though, is different
and, as Jesus points out himself, more difficult because those who oppressed by the poverty of
abundance do not see the need for liberation.24

11
Because those of us who occupy leadership roles in the church live in the poverty of abundance, we
often overlook it or ignore it. Overlooking or ignoring it renders our attempts to do justice to mere
charity, i.e. helping out those living in the poverty of economic disadvantage by making and helping
them to make their situations better. But what happens when their situations get better? Does that
mean that God’s justice has been done? When those who live in the poverty of economic
disadvantage are liberated, do they not then begin living in the poverty of abundance? As such, do
they ever then become oppressors?

George Orwell’s masterpiece, Animal Farm gives us a marvelous perspective on that concept. At
the beginning of the story, the humans are the oppressors and all of the animals are the oppressed.
The animals revolt and are liberated. Because the resulting society must have order, a group from
among the animals, the pigs, rises to power. Sin enters in and the majority of the animals end up in
worse shape than they were under the humans. Ultimately, the pigs themselves become human. If
we were to follow the story throughout multiple generations of animals, we would likely see more
revolts and another well meaning group of animals ending up oppressing other animals.

Perhaps a better story for us, however, is the story of the people of Israel. At the end of the book of
Genesis and the beginning of the book of Exodus, we find the people of Israel living in peace and
abundance in Egypt. A new Egyptian king, however, becomes concerned about how that peace and
abundance affects his own.25

8
Now a new king arose over Egypt, who did not know Joseph. 9 He said to his people,
"Look, the Israelite people are more numerous and more powerful than we. 10 Come,
let us deal shrewdly with them, or they will increase and, in the event of war, join our
enemies and fight against us and escape from the land." 11 Therefore they set
taskmasters over them to oppress them with forced labor. They built supply cities,
Pithom and Rameses, for Pharaoh. 12 But the more they were oppressed, the more
they multiplied and spread, so that the Egyptians came to dread the Israelites. 13 The
Egyptians became ruthless in imposing tasks on the Israelites, 14 and made their lives
bitter with hard service in mortar and brick and in every kind of field labor. They were
ruthless in all the tasks that they imposed on them.

The remainder of the Exodus story then tells us how God led the people out of their bondage and
oppression to a new land with a new promise of life free from oppression. It does not take very long,
however, before those newly liberated people become oppressors, which ultimately leads them to a
new situation in which they again are the oppressed as exiles in Babylon.

Another way to look at it is through Jesus’ story of the laborers in the vineyard. I draw particular
attention to Matthew 20:16, “So the first shall be last, and the last shall be first.” I am certainly not a
Biblical scholar so I won’t attempt to enter into a scholarly debate on the passage. I will point out,
however, that as a matter of common sense if the first is last and the last is first, there is no first nor
last; there is only one body in Christ. If it were otherwise, there would always a continuing cycle of
those who would be first and those who would be last. That would be inconsistent with the kingdom
Jesus proclaims. Christ offers “liberation” for all – both those who are now first and those who are
now last without preference such that there is neither first nor last.

Among the most incredible examples in recent history of people who clearly understood liberation in
this fashion include Salvadorian Archbishop Oscar Romero, Dietrich Bonhoeffer and Martin Luther
12
King, Jr. One cannot help but think of Mark 8:34-35 when referencing these disciples: “[Jesus] said
to them, ‘If any of you want to become my followers, let them deny themselves and take up their
cross and follow me. For those who want to save their life will lose it, and those who lose their life for
my sake, and for the sake of the gospel, will save it.”26

Romero was a timid and studious man when he was elected to the office of Archbishop by
conservative bishops who believed Romero to be a safe choice. Prior to his election, he was at ease
with the elites of the church and state in El Salvador. He was also openly critical of liberation
theology. Those living in the poverty of economic disadvantage had no reason to believe Romero
would ever understand much less embrace their struggle.

While some may argue that Romero later embraced the same liberation theology he formerly
criticized that is not accurate. Instead, Romero came to understand that both those living in the
poverty of economic disadvantage and those living in the poverty of abundance must be liberated
from the bondage which oppresses them and that such liberation requires love of neighbor as well
as love of self, compromise and self-sacrifice. He pleaded with both sides in the struggle to end the
violence – to look at themselves in relation to their neighbors whom they happened to be killing. In
his last homily, given just moments before he was assassinated, he said, “One must not love oneself
so much, as to avoid getting involved in the risks of life that history demands of us, and those that
fend off danger will lose their lives”.27

One of the greatest theological minds of his time, Bonhoeffer could have very comfortably stayed in
the halls of academia piously lecturing, writing and teaching into a ripe old age. But Bonhoeffer
fervently believed that faith requires action. So to follow Jesus, Bonhoeffer believed he must not only
write great theology, but he must take action. Arguably, Bonhoeffer’s greatest achievement was his
total submission to Jesus Christ and his commitment to following Christ at any cost – even the cost
of his life. In 1942, he wrote:28

Because Jesus is not about the proclamation and realization of new ethical ideals, nor
about his own moral purity, but only about love for real human beings, therefore he is
able to enter into communion with their guilt... Out of his selfless love and his
sinlessness, Jesus enters into the guilt of humanity, taking it upon himself...Whoever
wants to escape from responsibility for guilt withdraws...from the redeeming mystery of
Jesus Christ's sinless guilt offering and has no share in the divine justification, which is
based on this event. Someone like this puts personal innocence over responsibility for
humanity and is blind to the enormous guilt that is thereby taken upon oneself.

Likewise, Martin Luther King, Jr. could have comfortably stayed in the pulpit where he excelled as a
preacher. People would have listened, and he most likely would have grown a huge church filled
with parishioners ready and willing to listen while they waited for someone else to take action. He
didn’t do that and it cost him his very life even though his approach was non-violent. His actions,
however, raised criticism from even his colleagues. From his jail cell in Birmingham, he wrote a
response to fellow clergy concerned with his activities. He wrote:29

13
 While confined here in the Birmingham city jail, I came across your recent statement
calling my present activities "unwise and untimely." Seldom do I pause to answer
criticism of my work and ideas. If I sought to answer all the criticisms that cross my
desk, my secretaries would have little time for anything other than such
correspondence in the course of the day, and I would have no time for constructive
work. But since I feel that you are men of genuine good will and that your criticisms are
sincerely set forth, I want to try to answer your statements in what I hope will be patient
and reasonable terms.

I am in Birmingham because injustice is here (emphasis added). Just as the

prophets of the eighth century B.C. left their villages and carried their "thus saith the
Lord" far beyond the boundaries of their home towns, and just as the Apostle Paul left
his village of Tarsus and carried the gospel of Jesus Christ to the far corners of the
Greco-Roman world, so am I compelled to carry the gospel of freedom beyond my
own home town. Like Paul, I must constantly respond to the Macedonian call for aid. . .

But though I was initially disappointed at being categorized as an extremist, as I

continued to think about the matter I gradually gained a measure of satisfaction from
the label. Was not Jesus an extremist for love: "Love your enemies, bless them that
curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use
you, and persecute you." Was not Amos an extremist for justice: "Let justice roll down
like waters and righteousness like an ever-flowing stream." Was not Paul an extremist
for the Christian gospel: "I bear in my body the marks of the Lord Jesus." Was not
Martin Luther an extremist: "Here I stand; I cannot do otherwise, so help me God." And
John Bunyan: "I will stay in jail to the end of my days before I make a butchery of my
conscience." And Abraham Lincoln: "This nation cannot survive half slave and half
free." And Thomas Jefferson: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are
created equal ..." So the question is not whether we will be extremists, but what kind of
extremists we be. Will we be extremists for hate or for love? Will we be extremists for
the preservation of injustice or for the extension of justice? In that dramatic scene on
Calvary's hill three men were crucified. We must never forget that all three were
crucified for the same crime---the crime of extremism. Two were extremists for
immorality, and thus fell below their environment. The other, Jesus Christ, was an
extremist for love, truth and goodness, and thereby rose above his environment.
Perhaps the South, the nation and the world are in dire need of creative extremists.

There are leaders in our present church who are definitely making attempts to bring the church
closer to this understanding. The very fact that one of the strategic directions of the church is to be a
“church that steps forward as a public church that witnesses boldly to all that God has created,
seeking to promote justice, peace, and the care of the earth” shows a deep commitment to moving
forward. Still we must be honest that in an overall analysis the church fairs poorly because its official
policies are not written in the hearts of a majority of its membership. Let me explain by offering a
brief analysis of “public policy.”

Public Policy
A discussion of a Judeo-Christian understanding of what it means to “strive for justice and peace in
all the earth” would be grossly incomplete without a discussion of public policy. Once again we must
14
be careful to not move too quickly to our own frames of reference to define the term “public policy”. If
we do we will get trapped into thinking that public policy is strictly government action and our sole
focus on changing public policy becomes advocating for legislative or regulatory change.

So if public policy is not so limited, what is it and what does it include? While it may sound
overwhelming, public policy includes those official and unofficial policies that define the manner in
which a community or society functions. We need to make a distinction between policy and public
policy. To be true public policy, the policy must be embraced by a majority of people in the
community or forced on a weak or inattentive majority by a minority such that it becomes a part of the
life of the community. Many institutions and cultures have official policies that never become public
policy because those policies are never embraced by or become a part of the life of the community.

Whether done formally or informally, developing and implementing public policy is a difficult and
complex process that is dependent upon many factors. One of the key factors, though, is garnering
public support. Whether or not the policy becomes public policy can and often does, in fact, hinge on
how the issue is framed. George Lakoff, a cognitive scientist, has researched, written and lectured
extensively on issue framing and how critical such framing is in selling policy ideas to the public at
large. He provides us with several excellent examples to emphasize his point. One is “tax relief.”
Suppose a small minority of people want to reduce the amount they pay in income taxes. For that to
become public policy, they must first get support from the majority. By putting the words “tax” and
“relief” together they create a metaphor that conjures up images of one getting “relief” from
burdensome, oppressive and unfair taxes. Before long those seeking political office are jumping on
the proverbial band wagon by promising they are going to bring “tax relief”. The voting public, then,
expects such relief without even thinking about what that truly means when, in fact, it sometimes
means they end up carrying a greater share of tax responsibility in other ways.

A great example of this kind of thinking is what happened in Alabama in September of 2003 “when 2
out 3 Alabamians rejected a far reaching and comprehensive tax plan that would have fundamentally
changed the tax system of the State to generate more than $1 billion in new revenue”.30 Consistent
with Thomas Frank’s theories in What’s the Matter with Kansas, a majority of people who voted to
reject this tax plan would have personally benefited from its passage. What happened? Why did
those who would have benefited most, vote against its passage. It comes down to framing. Some
organizations do such an excellent job of framing their issues that people who would not normally
consider themselves a part of the organization’s primary community nonetheless vehemently support
the policies promoted by the organization even if they are contrary to their self-interests. Many of
these policy proposals center on those “low-sacrifice” issues identified by Professor Hamill where
little other than personal piety is at stake. Further, the manner in which these issues are framed
helps us to self-justify as posited by Professor Peters as discussed above.

This is a very difficult concept to grasp. So let’s continue the “tax relief” example to explore it more
deeply. When we hear people in authority telling us they are going to bring us relief from our taxes
we start drawing those clear lines between good and evil in our minds. We justify that we are good
and since we are good we deserve relief from bad things and taxes are always bad. We go further
on our journey of self-justification when we argue that people should be “self-sufficient,” “pull
themselves up by their own bootstraps” and not rely on taxes on “our hard earned,” and thus,
“deserved” income for medical care or food or child care. We rationalize once again, to use Dr.
Peters’ analysis, and place ourselves on the “good side” and those who are not “self-sufficient” on
the bad side. But the concept of “self-sufficiency” flies in the face of Judeo-Christian values which
are rooted in a sense of community in which everything is understood to be a gift from God entrusted
15
to humankind for the benefit of all creation including other humans. In the Judeo-Christian
experience and understanding of God there is no “yours,” “mine” and “ours.”31 Rather, there is only
God’s.

Both the Hebrew and Christian scriptures are full of clear commands from God to share that to which
we have been entrusted with others. The very fact that there are those without in a society such as
ours that claims to be “one nation under God with liberty and justice for all” shows how far we have
strayed from God.

Rights vs. Responsibilities

I gave the closing address at a recent meeting. The title of my presentation was to be “Speaking up
for Human Rights.” As I prepared for that presentation, I began by asking myself the question, “What
are ‘human rights?’” I began that journey by looking at the word “rights.” When I use or hear the
word, it evokes certain images for me. One of the strongest is that a right is something to which I am
entitled. So I had to ask myself further: “As a Christian to what am I entitled?” In my understanding
of what it means to be a Christian, I found myself answering: “I am ‘entitled’ to nothing – not even
life.” If we confess and truly believe that God is creator of all things then it follows that everything
belongs to God and only God has a right to anything. But, rather than recognizing these things as
coming from God, we begin to worship them, demand them, kill for them and self-justify in them.

Thomas Jefferson captured that concept so well when he wrote: “We hold these truths to be self-
evident, that all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights,
that among those are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” It is a profound statement that shows
a deep understanding of God’s creation as not just a simple one-time gift, but an endowment with
which no other human has a right to interfere. However, that’s a concept which is difficult to grasp,
and rather than focusing on the word “endowment,” we focus on the word “rights” when we ponder
Jefferson’s statement. Thus, we have become a people who, instead of being thankful for our
endowment, take it for granted and demand “our rights.”

God’s endowments or gifts are indeed tremendous blessings for which we should be immeasurably
thankful. But, we also learn from Genesis that those endowments come with a responsibility to be a
blessing.32 If we return to first/last metaphor proffered by Jesus in Matthew 20:18 thinking in terms of
these endowments coming with responsibility we should have an even deeper understanding of
Jesus’ teaching here. Rather than thinking in terms of anyone having a “right” to be first, we should
think in terms of everyone having a responsibility to not strive for “first-ness,” even if we intend that
“first-ness” for good. Thus, those who are first, however that is defined, should understand they are
in that position because they are violating the responsibility God demands of them not because God
has blessed them such that they are first or their blessings are something to which they are entitled.
If everyone utilized their gifts to bless, there would never be a first or a last.

So doing justice, from a Judeo-Christian perspective, has more to do with living out those
responsibilities rather than forcing others to not trample on our “rights.” Unfortunately, sin not just
enters the picture but blasts itself all over it like a rotten tomato staining and distorting it. Thus, laws
become necessary for society to even function. But sin messes that up too such that no law is
perfect or even close to perfect.

16
 Stepping Forward as a Public Church

One of the modern classics of literature is the book To Kill a Mockingbird by the southern genius,
Harper Lee. While there are several outstanding lessons about the realities of Christian behavior in
that book, one of the most poignant is a scene in which the little girl, Scout, is observing a meeting of
a women’s missionary group from her church. The women passionately discuss the plight of the
Mrunas, an African tribe being converted to Christianity, and then discuss how poorly their own black
servants have been acting since Tom Robinson’s conviction. Scout, now age 9, is bewildered by
and cannot reconcile the hypocrisy of the adults. “‘Mrs. Merriweather’s large brown eyes always
filled up with tears when she considered the oppressed’ [in Africa], Scout notes, yet the same woman
can complain that ‘there’s nothing more distracting than a sulky darky.’”33

The book was written in the 1950s about the American south in the 1930s. Yet the tenor of the
conversation carries on today in churches throughout the United States and spills out in official
government policy. In a recent speech Bill Moyers stated:34

“The Christian Right trumpets charity (as in Faith Based Initiatives) but is silent on
social and economic justice. Inequality in America has reached scandalous
proportions: a few weeks ago the government acknowledged that while incomes are
growing smartly for the first time in years, the primary winners are the top earners—
people who receive stocks, bonuses, and other income in addition to wages. The
nearly 80 percent of Americans who rely mostly on hourly wages barely maintained
their purchasing power. Even as Hurricane Katrina was hitting the Gulf Coast, giving
us a stark reminder of how poverty can shove poor people into the abyss, the U.S.
Census Bureau reported that last year one million people were added to 36 million
already living in poverty. And since l999 the income of the poorest one fifth of
Americans has dropped almost nine percent.

Mr. Moyers’ speech targeted one particular group of Christians known at the Christian Right.
However, in all fairness his comments ring true about other Christian groups and individuals within
still other Christian groups -- at least in part. As a body these groups, including the ELCA, have well
reasoned and faithful official policy statements that address such things as social and economic
injustice. Further, these groups, including the ELCA, faithfully advocate in favor of federal and state
public policy consistent with those official policy statements. Unfortunately, the official policy
statements of these churches are not necessary their “public policy.” Remember that for policy to be
“public policy” it must be embraced by a majority of the community and become a part of the life of
the community. That’s primarily where these two groups differ. The policy advocated for by the
Christian Right is its public policy. That policy is embraced by a majority of the community such that
when its leaders call upon the body for action they get tremendous response. Sadly, quite often it is
also the public policy of these other Christian groups by default because it is the policy embraced by
the majority of the community of those other Christian groups as well.

Let’s look at some concrete examples. C. E. Carlson, a member of Project Strait Gait, an
organization opposing the war in Iraq, wrote to Community of Joy Church, an ELCA congregation in
Phoenix, AZ,35 advising the church of his organization’s desire to hold a vigil in opposition to the war
on the Palm Sunday of that particular year. On Saturday, Mr. Carlson got a phone call from
someone identified as Wayne Skaff, a staff member of Community of Joy. Mr. Skaff emphatically
17
told Mr. Carlson he did not want Mr. Carlson’s organization to visit the church because their
congregation is largely unchurched, and he believed some might leave if they saw a demonstration
opposing the war. Mr. Carlson asked Mr. Skaff if the church “had taken a position opposing the
slaughter of innocent Iraqis, or any of the serial wars. The answer was a flat ‘no’”.36 When Mr.
Carlson pointed out that the ELCA officially opposed the action, Mr. Skaff replied that the ELCA does
not set Community of Joy’s policy.37

One can certainly understand why a congregation might have legitimate concerns about a
demonstration of any kind on its grounds. So that in and of itself is not troubling. What is troubling is
that the Community of Joy not only denied taking a position on the war but distanced itself from the
position of the ELCA. The question that is left hanging is whether Community of Joy embraces any
of the “official policies” of the ELCA. Can those official policies then truly be the public policy of the
church?

Another example is an ELCA congregation that openly lifts up its refusal to hire a highly qualified
organist because he acknowledged his homosexual orientation. To defend its action the church
states that it wants to send a message in opposition to “the gay lifestyle”. But ELCA Church Council
Action CC.93.3.37 adopted in 1993, provides:

“RESOLVED, that the Church Council of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America
reaffirms that the historical position of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America is:

Support for legislation, referendums, and policies to protect the civil rights of all
persons, regardless of their sexual orientation, and to prohibit discrimination in
housing, employment, and public services and accommodations . . .

While the church in this example might have had some legitimate concerns about a single person
engaging in sexual relationships outside of marriage joining its staff, the message it sends, and
appears to want to send, is that it is okay to discriminate against someone on the basis of sexual
orientation. So is CC.93.3.37 public policy of the church? This particular congregation says very
loudly and clearly that it is not.

In yet another example a member of an ELCA congregation was running for mayor of a large city.
He actively campaigned for economic policies that are in direct conflict with the ELCA’s Social
Statement on Economic Life: Sufficient Sustainable Livelihood for All. Certainly, an individual
member of the ELCA can disagree with the ELCA. However, one of the candidate’s television
campaign ads featured his connection to his church and showed a picture of him conversing with his
pastor – a well-known and prominent figure in the community. As that picture passed before the
viewer, a narrator announced, “faithful church person”. The message was powerful. It said, or at
least implied, that one of the most prominent ELCA congregations in the community endorses those
contrary economic policies.

This last example is possibly the most dangerous. It is more dangerous because we can probably
be confident the pastor did not even consider (and may not have ever read) the Social Statement on
Economic Life when he inadvertently endorsed these contrary positions. So most likely this pastor
who is so prominent in the community and someone with whom people in the community identify the
church did not even think about his actions in terms of the policy message. If this can happen to a

18
well trained and experienced pastor one can only imagine where the majority of members are in their
understanding of the policies of the ELCA.

Are these isolated incidents of a bothersome illness or representations of an advanced cancer?

Does it matter? If we are serious about stepping forward as a public church, can they be ignored?

Certainly, various expressions of the church are already engaged in the public sphere. However, the
question that continues to loom in my mind as I think about what it means to step forward as a public
church is whether we can truly do that without seriously and sincerely assessing and addressing our
own poverty of abundance and its resulting slavery, oppression and our own need for liberation. In
other words, is it enough for the church to “officially” step forward as a public church without honestly
assessing whether our official policies are also our public policies, and, if they truly are not as I
theorize above, whether we can be effective as a public church without somehow infusing those
policies into the body such that they are organic to it?

George Johnson refers to this as “moving from priest to priesthood”38, a concept that is certainly
familiar to Lutherans. But Johnson’s use is unique because he is talking about a way of life in which
there is no separation such that the responsibility for stepping forward as a public church does not lie
with certain expressions of the church but with the church as a whole in all of its expressions,
including its membership. If that were the case, all expressions of the church would at least strive to
live out the policies it promotes and lifts up, and we would not have one expression of the church
promoting certain practices as “the seven common faith practices” without even a slight reference to
“pursuing peace and justice.” If that were the case, all expressions of the church which purchase
vehicles or build buildings would seriously wrestle with the Social Statement, Caring for Creation,
when considering the type of vehicle to purchase or building to build.

Current Practices and Tools Used in the ELCA

There appear to be three distinct tools the institution known as the ELCA uses to pursue justice:
advocacy, community based organizing, and social ministry. These tools are used both formally and
informally by various expressions of the church in various ways. I submit, however, there is a huge
piece missing: “prophetic ministry.” Prophetic ministry is important to stepping out as a public
church because without it, we are not, except in isolated instances, engaging the people in our
church into deep and meaningful self-examination of what it means to live out one’s faith.

Let’s try to define “prophetic ministry.” In his work, The Prophetic Imagination, Old Testament
scholar Walter Brueggemann offers a definition of “prophetic ministry.” He writes39:

I suggest that prophetic ministry has to do not primarily with addressing specific public
crises, but with addressing, in season and out of season, the dominant crisis that is
enduring and resilient, of having our alternative vocation co-opted and domesticated.
It may be, of course, that this enduring crisis manifests itself in any given time around
concrete issues, but it concerns the enduring crisis that runs from concrete issue to
concrete issue . . . The alternative consciousness to be nurtured, on the one hand,
serves to criticize in dismantling the dominant consciousness . . . On the other hand,
that alternative consciousness to be nurtured served to energize persons and
communities by its promise of another time and situation toward which the community
of faith may move. . . In thinking this way, the key word is alternative, and every

19
 prophetic minister and prophetic community must engage in a struggle with that
notion. Thus, alternative to what? In what ways alternative? How radically
alternative? Finally, is there a thinkable alternative that will avoid domestication? And,
quite concretely, how does one present and act out alternatives in a community of faith
which on the whole does not understand that are any alternatives or is not prepared to
embrace such if they come along?

A prophetic voice is one that speaks primarily to its own community and makes linkages between the
faith that serves as the foundation of the faith and what is happening in the world. We need to
understand, however, that does not necessarily mean the prophetic voice is telling the community
how it should live. Rather, the role of that voice is to raise questions and make linkages.

We can look to the Old Testament prophets for examples. Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Hosea, Joel,
Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi all
spoke directly to their own people. Each of them delivered messages that spoke profoundly to the
community – not just to community leaders. They urged, pleaded and demanded the people look at
themselves in relation to God. Some of them, like Jeremiah, clearly directed their messages more
intently at community leaders, but all of them spoke so all the people could hear. We must,
therefore, speak to our own people. We must teach about living out our faith in the public sector as
responsible citizens of faith. We must make connections between faith and public policy.

This is often troublesome because it involves conversations that often place individual members of
the body in conflict with the body. But being prophetic has never been safe or comfortable. Rather it
is a huge undertaking that requires a lot of risky work in developing and delivering a message that is
understandable in multiple cultures and venues using the media available. It involves theological
struggle, and the ability to connect that theology to the issues. It involves having in-depth
understandings of the policies of the church and the ability to make that understanding come alive for
someone else. It involves developing or collecting curricula that can be used effectively with multiple
audiences. It involves public speaking. It involves writing. It involves preaching. It involves
teaching. It involves listening. It involves facing our fears. It involves training others, including
pastors, to do the same. It involves developing public information campaigns.

While there clearly is a prophetic aspect to advocacy, doing advocacy is not in and itself prophetic.
The ELCA generally defines “advocacy” as “speaking on behalf of those who have no voice”. There
are various ways in which that definition can be interpreted. A literal reading, however, leads one to
question whether the definition emphasizes charity over justice because such a reading implies an
action in which a party in a superior position speaks to those in power on behalf of those in a lesser
position presumably in order to promote policies that place those in the lesser position in a better
position. It focuses on liberation for one group only – those who have no voice. It presumes “those
who have voice” do not need liberation or are already liberated. But liberation in Christ is an ongoing
and never ending process.

Because I am intimately involved in the advocacy work of the ELCA, I understand the way in which
advocacy in the ELCA is practiced does not adhere strictly to the definition. It is certainly much
broader than the definition implies. Nonetheless, because the way in which we define things says so
much about the frames that form around the various understandings of what the ELCA is attempting
to do, it is important for all of us to look at that definition closely. But, by its nature, advocacy deals
primarily with those concrete issues rather than engaging the community in conversation and
20
struggle with those ongoing crises as discussed by Brueggemann. More dangerously, advocacy, at
least to a certain extent, assumes the community supports the conclusions on which the advocacy
position is based.

Let me give an example. A farmer approached me with concerns about the ELCA being involved in
advocacy work on the Farm Bill. He specifically referred to the definition of “advocacy” in raising his
concern. His basic concerns were as follows: “Advocacy means ‘speaking on behalf of those who
have no voice.’ Farmers have voice through various farm organizations. So why is the ELCA
involved in advocacy on the Farm Bill”? I quickly pointed out that the Food Stamp program is a part
of the Farm Bill. Because the Food Stamp program is intended to benefit those “who have no voice,”
the ELCA’s advocacy work is appropriate. I also pointed out there are other parts of the Farm Bill
that fit within the definition.

In reflection, however, I think there are deeper reasons for the church to be involved in something
like the Farm Bill. The Farm Bill represents public policy that sets rules for and greatly impacts the
way in which important resources (gifts from God) are distributed among God’s people (all the
people in the world) – an ongoing crisis. As such it is a justice issue. Consequently, the Church
should not only be concerned about the Farm Bill’s treatment of those who live in the poverty of
economic disadvantage but also its treatment of those who live in the poverty of abundance, how
these two diverse groups understand each other, and how all of it relates God’s plan for all of
creation. So even if the Food Stamp program were not a part of the Farm Bill, the ELCA should
speak – not on behalf of those who have no voice but as an expression of a God who calls us to “do
justice” (Micah 6:8). In other words, we should be speaking with, to and on behalf of God’s entire
creation not simply one portion of it we have determined to be disadvantaged or balancing the
interests of the disadvantaged or the advantaged. Further, the church should not just be speaking to
those in power about something such as the Farm Bill, but also to the community. I place emphasis
on the word “to” because prophetic ministry means more than being involved in ongoing discussion.
It certain involves that aspect. But, there is a strong teaching component to it. Teaching, of course,
involves listening and adapting.

Thus, my explanation of the ELCA’s advocacy work in relation to the Farm Bill because it impacts the
poor was not only inadequate, from a justice perspective it was misleading because my response
implied that it’s the charitable thing to do. One might ask, “Where’s the harm in that?” It’s harmful
because it perpetuates the misunderstanding that doing charity is the same as doing justice.

Another tool used within the ELCA in an effort to live out the part of the baptismal covenant calling us
to strive for justice and peace in all the earth is congregation based organizing. While congregation
based organizing might look somewhat different in different communities, there are some basic
characteristics fairly common to most congregation based organizing groups. First and foremost,
they are community based. Second, they generally share some form of “the iron rule”, which is that
you should never do for someone what they are not willing to do for themselves. (Cite authority)

Congregation based organizing is relational. It generally involves a leader who facilitates the
discovery and development of leaders within the community. Those leaders develop and foster
relationships among members of the community. Issues addressed by the community are those
raised by members of the community through an intentional process.

As such, congregation based organizing, like advocacy, addresses those concrete issues born out of
crises rather than the ongoing crises that run from concrete issue to concrete issue. That may have
21
some prophetic aspects to it, but it certainly is not prophetic in and of itself. Further, the focus of
congregation based organizing being on the community itself doesn’t urge members of that
community to recognize the effects of its actions on the larger community and the linkages between
its actions and all of creation.

Another major way in which the ELCA seems to be involved in pursuing justice is through social
ministry organizations (SMOs). SMOs are generally direct service providers – though they often do
so much more. Since the primary purpose or focus of SMOs is on direct service, they are inherently
more focused on charity than on justice. When SMOs do advocacy or organizing, they focus more
on advocating and organizing around positions that enable them to be able to provide services.
Thus, for example, it might not be in an SMO’s self interest to advocate in favor of a living wage
because it could affect the organization’s ability to provide services.

Further, although there have been some efforts to bring those involved in using these tools together
to talk about ways in which they can work together, so much of that conversation seems to have
focused on validating the role each plays in pursuing justice. It does not appear the conversation
has focused on the central theme of what it means to “strive for justice and peace in all the Earth”.
Certainly, it did not discuss the lack of prophecy.

Closing Thoughts

I was first going to call this section “Conclusion”, but I could not figure out how to conclude. I then
thought I would call it “Summary,” but that did not seem to fit either. So I settled on “Closing
Thoughts” primarily because at some point I need to quit writing and begin sharing this paper. One
thing I understand, though, is that as I continue my ongoing journey to discover what it means to live
out my faith, I will pull this paper out and revise it. I invite you to do the same. I understand that we
will never get it completely right so the paper itself will never be completely right. But I write it to stir
thought and engage a community in conversation.

There are some pieces of this paper, however, from which I am fairly certain I will not move too far.
First, as a people of faith, it is vital that we continually struggle with what it means to pursue justice
and to explore what that means from not only a theological perspective but also a practical
perspective. Second, if, as a church we develop policies that speak to how people of faith should
live out their lives in the public sector, we must be serious about engaging the people of our church
in conversation about those policies so they not only become organic to our own understandings of
what it means to be a public church but also to give them the opportunity to be involved in re-shaping
what we call living documents. Third, we must be intentional about being prophetic. We must teach
our pastors how to speak to people about the world as it is in relation to the way it should be. Finally,
we must find a way for those entities of the church that are engaged in the pursuit of justice to work
together for the greater good of the whole church, and more important, for the good of God’s
kingdom.

22
1
I served as Director of Justice and Advocacy Ministries, ELCA – Nebraska from 2000 to 2010. I received a B.A. with academic distinction in Political
Science with minors in Social Sciences and German from Wayne State College in 1980, and a J.D. from the University of Nebraska-Lincoln College of
Law in 1986. Since graduating from law school, I have worked primarily in the public sector with emphasis on elder law and family law. In 2008 I
received a Certifice of Theological Education theology on at Pacific Lutheran Theological Seminary in Berkeley, California through the Theological
Education for Emerging Ministries program. I currently serve as a consultant for the legal services program of the South Central Nebraska Area
Agency on Aging and as Pastor at Emmanuel Lutheran Church in Beatrice, Nebraska.
2
Formerly referred to as the Office of Public Policy Advocacy of the Nebraska Synod. The name was changed to Justice Ministries in 2003 and to
Justice and Advocacy Ministries in 2005 in recognition that while a primary aspect of our work is public policy advocacy, the work we are called to do is
a ministry that is intrinsically related to the part of the Baptismal Covenant that calls us to “strive for justice and peace in all the world.” The name
change reflects this understanding and attempts to incorporate the concepts of justice, advocacy and ministry.
3
This is often referred to as “family” values, which carries all sorts of connotations.
4
A phrase borrowed from my friend and colleague, Andrew Genszler, Director of Domestic Policy for the ELCA Washington Office
5
Affirmation of Baptism, Lutheran Book of Worship, Page 201
6
Rowland Sherrill, Speech at the FACS Conference, September 23, 2003, http://www.facsnet.org/issues/faith/civil_religion1.htm
7
Introduction to the Book of Amos, The New Oxford Annotated Bible, NRSV, ©Oxford University Press, 1991, 1994
8
Amos 2:6-8, NRSV
9
Amos 5:21-24, NRSV
10
Daniel Erlander, Manna and Mercy, God’s Unfolding Promise to Mend the Entire Universe, ©1992
11
See, Thomas Frank, What’s the Matter with Kansas
12
Susan Pace Hamill, An Evaluation of Federal Tax Policy Based on Judeo-Christian Ethics, copyright 2005 by Susan Pace Hamill and THE VIRGINIA
TAX REVIEW, forthcoming in Volume 25 of THE VIRGINIA TAX REVIEW, Winter 2006, page 60.
13
Ibid, page 60.
14
George Johnson, Beyond Guilt: Christian Response to Human Suffering, copyright 2000 by George S. Johnson, page 41.
15
Ibid, page 42
16
Ibid, page 42
17
Sadly in the real world those who have no access and borrow to obtain the resources they need or want do so at great cost. Interest rates on
“payday” loans, for example, can range between 300 to 700%. Amazingly, those rates often pale in comparison when one converts the bank charges
for overdrafts to an annual percentage rate which can be as high at 5000%.
18
The United States is currently embroiled in a most heated debate on immigration. As I listen to that debate, I can’t help but make connections.
Without question, the United States is one of the most, if not the most, wealthy and powerful nations in the entire world. Our neighbors living in Mexico
and Central America see the United States as a land full of better opportunities for them and their families. So they take great risks to seek out those
opportunities or a “share of the pond” if you will. Many don’t expect that to happen for them, but they have great expectations for the coming
generations. Many Americans, on the other hand, can see the value of exploiting cheap immigrant labor for expanding their own wealth and well being,
but they are greatly concerned about the rising economic costs of a growing immigrant population, i.e., higher taxation, fewer jobs for Americans (not
that Americans generally want those jobs). In short – those who are coming to the United States want more (maybe even just enough to live). Those
who don’t want the immigrants don’t want share any more of what they have than they have to.
19
The term “poverty of abundance” appears to have been coined by author Albert U. Romasco in his 1965 book, The Poverty of Abundance: Hoover,
the Nation, the Depression, Oxford University Press, 1965. I must confess I have not read Romasco’s book and was not aware of its existence until I
researched the term “poverty of abundance” in preparing this paper. I had first heard the term used by Rev. David deFreese, Bishop of the Nebraska
Synod of the ELCA, and have “adopted” the term.
20
For a more detailed discussion of the disparity in choice see, http://understandingkatrina.ssrc.org/Fussell/
21
Lest this sound too bleak, it should be pointed out that the budget reconciliation package passed by only two votes and the Food Stamp program was
spared.
22
Ted Peters, From Sin to Radical Evil, Theological Brief for PLTS/ITE, http://www.plts.edu/docs/ITESinx1.pdf, December 2005
23
An Introduction to the Principles of Catholic Social Thought, ©2004, University of Notre Dame,
http://centerforsocialconcerns.nd.edu/mission/cst/cst4.shtml
24
See Luke 18:22-25
25
Ex 1:8-14 (NRSV)

26
Mark 8:34-35, NRSV
27
Cite source here
28
Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Ethics, DBW 6:275f
29
Martin Luther King, Jr., Letter from Birmingham Jail, April 16, 1963
30
Dr. Jim Seroka, Alabama’s Tax Reform: What Went Wrong and Why? Alabama Revenue Officers Association, December 5, 2003, page 1,
http://www.auburn.edu/outreach/cgs/publications/Alabamataxvote2003.pdf
31
See e.g. Gen. 1:24-28, Gen. 9:1-7, and Gen. 12:1-3
32
See Genesis 12:2-3
33
Harper Lee, To Kill A Mockingbird, ©_______________________________________________
34
Bill Moyers, 9/11 and the Sport of God, a speech delivered at Union Theological Seminary in New York on September 9, 2005.
35
Since the writing of this paper, the Community of Joy has terminated it’s affiliation with the ELCA and is now affiliated with the Lutheran Church in
Mission for Christ.
36
C. E. Carlson, Palm Sunday Vigil, a Mega-Church That Does Not Stand Against War, http://www.whtt.org/straitgate/index.php?id=28
37
Ibid
38
George Johnson, . . ……………………………………
39
Walter Brueggemann, The Prophetic Imagination, Second Edition, ©2001 Augsburg Fortress, pages 3 and 4