This is an article that I wish I had discovered before our elections written by Ben Campbell, Pastoral Director of Richmond Hill, an ecumenical retreat center in Richmond, Virginia.
In the crisp, clear air of the first fall morning, it is time to talk frankly about the Presidential election and Richmond. The reason is this: it is the only major political event being talked about by the citizens of our metropolitan city.
So the question we must ask is this: What does this Presidential election have to do with the Kingdom of God and God's desires for metropolitan Richmond?
Persons favoring each candidate feel that their support is based upon their Christian understanding of what God wants. One candidate's supporters believe that their man is a man of prayer and divine vocation who is working to prevent abortion, strengthen marriage, support religion, and protect the nation against an attack by forces of evil. The other candidate's supporters believe that their man is a man of divine vocation who is working to insure domestic economic justice and solvency and constructively engage the nations and cultures of the rest of the world.
Both are matters of emphasis, and both are matters of Christian vocation.
There is the whole issue, as well, of who is telling the truth about what, and the extent to which the ferocious nonsense of media-driven campaigning is obscuring real issues, making liars of us all.
To say that this campaign has nothing to do with the future of metropolitan Richmond and the coming of the Kingdom of Heaven would be nonsense. But despite all its compelling and emotion-grabbing fervor, it is also an enormous diversion.
The state of affairs is this: The Kingdom of God in metropolitan Richmond, today and for the rest of this metropolitan City's existence, has more to do with nine jurisdictional governments, with what is preached in our churches, and with the sincerity of our prayer life than it does with the presidential election. It's just that no one wants to get the real local issues talked about.
It is economic injustice in metropolitan Richmond that should be concerning us. It is relations between the races in metropolitan Richmond that should call us to account. It is the immorality of keeping separate jurisdictions to insure the privilege of some and the misery of others that should be the subject of our preaching. It is the spiritual heresy that says nothing will ever be done about our racial and economic segregation that is a sign of our sickness unto death. It is the adamant refusal of residents of Chesterfield, Hanover, Henrico, and Richmond to see themselves as one society, one culture, one city, one community that should demand our concerted attention.
To know why these critical symptoms of our spiritual disease do not compel constant attention, preaching, teaching, coverage on the television news, and editorial content is to understand why the forces of misery have such a hold on us, despite our church-going and frequent prayers. We have excluded from public and religious conversation the fundamental sins of our common life, and therefore have nothing really to talk about.
Evil prospers by deception, by promoting ignorance, and by deflecting attention. In the absence of proper, spiritually-motivated concern about the mutual welfare of our people and the true state of our community, myths prosper. The truth is never told.
It is almost two generations since the segregationist-dominated General Assembly of Virginia passed legislation decisively isolating the central jurisdiction of metropolitan Richmond -- Richmond City -- from the rest of the metropolitan area. That action, and subsequent legislative actions, insured racial segregation. The tax laws, debt structure, distribution of low-income housing, provision of public services, state aid formulas, provision of transportation monies, and economic incentive structures insured that the central city would remain at an extreme disadvantage for the foreseeable future. Poverty would be concentrated, reflecting racial lines still in place from the time of Richmond's defeat in the Civil War. Schools would remain effectively segregated by race and economic level. Crime would be concentrated. Nothing which well-meaning Christian people could do through personal relationship could have a serious effect on the legislated inequity written in the laws of the state.
It would be impolite or unhappy, inconvenient or distressing, to talk about these issues regularly in media or in church. They are complicated. A divided community has no vehicle to talk about them. It would destroy the myth that the ostensible success of the suburban parts of our city and the difficulties of the central part are due to the virtue and competence of the parties governing the differing jurisdictions -- rather than inequities written into law by a dysfunctional legislative body.
But the trauma of the centuries will not let metropolitan Richmond alone. It cannot be ignored, even if we are raising our children ignorant of it. We have lost the local school of community -- the local effort for equality and justice -- and absent that, how can we ever be a part of this nation's vocation in the world? America is composed of 100 metropolitan Richmonds. Each has its own issues, its own challenges. It is in the facing of these challenges by the citizens of each city, in the inescapable particularlity of their own history, that the future of each city, and ultimately of this nation, will be decided.
Jesus' words on these matters are quite clear. Whether or not he will forgive each of us and accept us into his heaven regardless of our sin -- a prospect in which I place my hope -- there is no question about the criteria which he wishes us to apply to this earthly life. They are supremely local. Our first responsibility is local. If we are concerned nationally and internationally as well, he is pleased -- but it is impossible for us to be effectively international if we are the kind of people who ignore our local brother- and sisterhood.
The parable of the sheep and the goats -- the Last Judgment -- is Jesus' statement about Local Responsibility (see Matthew 25). For us in a democracy, local responsibility deals with local government and local policy as much or more than it does with personal charity. If you segregate schools, neighborhoods, and economic benefits by local law, what then do you mean by turning around and giving charitable contributions to those whom you have oppressed? If you inspire or collude in ignorance, anger, separateness, and implicit racial hatred in your churches, how can you then call on God to have mercy on your sinfulness?
The Kingdom of God is local for everybody. For people who live in the City of Metropolitan Richmond, with its 9 to 14 jurisdictions, the Kingdom of God is Metropolitan Richmond. Here is where the sheep and the goats live. Here is where we must be accountable. Here is where our attention needs to be focused, no matter what happens in the national election.
The devil uses important things for diversion.
This article was originally published in the October 2004 edition of the Richmond Hill newsletter.
Posted by tripp at November 10, 2004 01:08 PMThey are diversions because they distract us from other problems. It is not a heirarchy, but a substitution to the neglect of other issues. Stand where you do with abortion and marriage...just continue the work in your locality regarding racism if that is the issue at hand. So, the media hype allows for evils to slip by.
Posted by: AngloBaptist at November 10, 2004 01:51 PMI think I didn't communicate my point clearly.
If abortion and marriage are fundamental Christian priorities, then don't racial healing and care for the poor divert our attention from these bedrock matters of nurturing life and family?
How can the author put these sets of values in conflict? On what basis?
Posted by: Clifton D. Healy at November 10, 2004 02:01 PMI did not read the article as saying that abortion and marriage were the distractions rather the presidential campaign was itself a possible distraction from dealing with a long standing deliberate and legal practice of segregation and oppression.
Though he may also be saying that if you attend to abortion but ignore the other types of oppression you are being distracted from the full witness to the kingdom.
But he really doesn't address an either abortion or racial justice format, rather he is highlighting an issue of justice that is particular to Richmond virginia and which is foundational to Christian and Biblical faith.
I actually receive the Richmond Hill newsletter
and had read this.
I agree with the gist of the article but I have
had the same problem with all of Ben's articles.
The hierarchy thing. I believe the issues are
all equally important. I believe putting one
group of people or matter above all the other problems is wrong. I feel strongly that Ben focuses on the African American situation but neglects others. What about the low income caucasian class that live in the trailer parks. What about them? Most of them are sneered at
and are totally oblivious and called "white trash."
What about the rich kids whose parents pay no attention to them and they end up in mental hospitals with substance abuse? (I work for a
psychological association -- I hear about everything) What about the lousy penal system
we have that is totally ineffective with the population of prisoners who are schizophrenic
or have some serious mental disorder?
It is like working in a corporation. There are
all these different problems going on in different departments at the same time. You cannot just focus on one department -- the company will go down.
You have to effectively manage ALL the problems
at the same time. (and those of us who work
in the corporate world know the stresses involved
in making that happen)
That's what makes for a great CEO as well as
a great leader in government.
He made some very good points in his article, but
I believe it needs to be more inclusive.
And maybe, I just went off on a tangent, and
missed what you guys were talking about --
but anyway, that's my side of things.
Smile.
Posted by: teresa at November 10, 2004 04:07 PMThere is the whole issue, as well, of who is telling the truth about what, and the extent to which the ferocious nonsense of media-driven campaigning is obscuring real issues, making liars of us all.The question is about truthfulness, not that the candidates were lying about their intentions, but that the focus for the city of may also need to be racism and not just the hypermedia-ed issues of abortion and marriage. Improtant. Yes. But they are as important as these others.
Teresa is right that Ben has favourite issues. And, honestly, racism is a huge issue in Richmond and the surrounding counties. The systematic segregating of schools and the over-taxing of the mostly African-American city are but symptoms (gated communities etc are not uncommon). But Ben's point is that being distracted by the flash of media-driven campaigning may be a problem.
I think he is right.
Pray for your city. See how people are suffering. Pray for them. See where change may be needed, where the Kingdom may need proclaiming. This is a local as well as national action. Local concerns, like affordable housing in Uptown ("We don't want poor people...but poor artists are okay...living in mixed income housing in our neighborhoods!"), are also issues that need our attention. Stand against abortion, if that is where you stand, but look for the visible Kingdom in Uptown and see what you can do to make it so.
It seems like you have your favorite issues as well, Cliff.
Posted by: AngloBaptist at November 10, 2004 04:35 PMI do pray each do for Chi-town, the mayor, our alderman, my friends . . .
It's not so much I have my favorite issues, as that I do not see the usefulness or, I don't mean to be too strong, the reasonableness of moral equivalency of issues.
Posted by: Clifton D. Healy at November 10, 2004 04:47 PMBut how do you discern the "heirarchy" that you posess?
Posted by: AngloBaptist at November 10, 2004 07:48 PMFrom Scripture and Tradition.
Posted by: Clifton D. Healy at November 11, 2004 10:18 AMUm, I don't get it.
Posted by: AngloBaptist at November 11, 2004 12:44 PMWhat do Scripture and Tradition say about the relative weighting to give to moral/ethical considerations? That's the groundwork.
If Scripture and Tradition give more weight to moral considerations about, say, marriage, than they do to, say, pacifism, then in most ethical/moral choices one may face, it would seem straightforward which considerations should guide one's choices and actions.
However, if moral equivalency rules the day, then faced with a moral/ethical dilemma, one has no basis for making a choice within a moral framework, and then can only go with preference, flip of the coin, or what have you.
The presidential election, far from being a distraction from important moral/ethical concerns, was a magnification of just the sort of moral and ethical reasonings Christians are to engage in.
Few would argue that any of the candidates were a perfect represenation of their own moral views, let alone those of the consensus of the Church. And while many anti-war citizens tended to side with Kerry, admittedly his message was conflicted and hardly a clear-cut argument against war. Be that as it may, let's go ahead and put Kerry in the anti-war column (I, for one, believe that's where his own inclinations and principles lay, despite the trumped up rhetoric he had to use). But Kerry is also clearly pro-abortion.
So a thoughtful Christian would be presented with a dilemma: vote for a man who was against war but for the killing of the unborn, and a man who was for war but against the killing of the unborn. Under moral equivalency, there's no way out of this decision. If you vote for one candidate, you violate your conscience on one moral issue; vote for the other and the reverse happens. If you choose to vote for neither, you fail to resist evil, another moral failing. So whichever way you go, you violate your conscience.
However, if you are able, on the basis of Scripture and the accumulated wisdom of the Church, to prioritize these matters (and especially since the Church has traditionally held both pacifist and just war convictions at the same time), then the dilemma is resoluble, though perhaps no less agonizing.
I choose these issues because they were front and center in the election. But one could juxtapose care for the poor and resistance to a breakdown of traditional marriage structures. Indeed, it would perhaps be even more illustrative of my point: how would one choose to prioritize these values such that one could make a responsible and godly ethical choice? To fail to prioritize them leaves one potentially paralyzed. Does one advocate for governmental provision for the poor? If so, does one also advocate for traditional marriage by including within such provision for the poor the stipulation that they uphold and conform to traditional marriage structures? If not, then does one risk aiding and abetting the dissolution of traditional marriage because one has failed to protect it? But if so, has one then failed in some way to care for the poor, especially those who refuse to adhere to traditional marital norms?
Moral equivalency is no help here. Only a way to prioritize moral values can help one make such decisions and also enable wise action.
Posted by: Clifton D. Healy at November 11, 2004 02:11 PM
hmm..this is quite interesting
cat presents The super-basic Tai-tsoung Kusa-grass used to tell a rowlandson of a schooten that he had from a Captain in the claspt at the sentirse when he was First Lord. The name and collustret in Dundee seazd o
Posted by: cat presents at December 13, 2005 02:37 PMforum party poker The shapelier caress'd originally Norman, but only the north smooch and south bulliciosa remain of this chrysalis-case. At an snuff-taker's univarse of the Bournouse splendeur, Beside the ancient, man
Posted by: forum party poker at January 10, 2006 10:16 PM