On God's Side ...

[Marilyn*]

http://www.alternet.org/story/21327/

On God's Side: A BuzzFlash Interview.

Jim Wallis talks about 'God's Politics' and values – by which Wallis doesn't mean hate, greed, and war-mongering.


Posted February 23, 2005.


... [R]eligion has to be disciplined by democracy. That means you don't enter the public square and say I'm religious so I ought to win. Or God has spoken to me directly and I have the fix for Social Security. You say my faith motivates me. It shapes my convictions or it compels me to act on behalf of the poor, or peace, or whatever. – Jim Wallis, God's Politics


Christianity Today describes Jim Wallis as "an evangelical leader in the faith-based [l]e
ft and a frequent critic of George W. Bush." Is there any wonder BuzzFlash is drawn to him? Both preacher and down-in-the-trenches social justice activist, Wallis currently is touring the country as a New York Times best-selling author discussing and signing his book, God's Politics. Not surprisingly, Wallis' message of inclusion and involvement is reverberating with Christians who don't like the right wing's "holier than thou" approach to politics, with its narrow and divisive emphasis on abortion and gay marriage. BuzzFlash talked with Jim Wallis about progressive values, God, and good deeds.

BuzzFlash: The subtitle of your book, God's Politics, states, "Why the right gets it wrong and the left doesn't get it." What do you mean by that?

Jim Wallis: The right is very comfortable with the language of faith and values and God and faith. In fact, they think they own it sometimes, or almost own religion or
own God.

And then they narrow everything to one or two hot-button social issues, as if abortion and gay marriage are the only two moral values questions. And those are important issues and they need a deeper, wider conversation – kind of a moral discussion on all sides. That's fine.

But did anybody really suggest or imagine these are the only two moral values issues? I'm an evangelical Christian and I find 3,000 verses in the Bible on the poor, so fighting poverty is a moral value too, or protecting the environment – protecting God's creation is a moral value. The ethics of war – whether we go to war, how we go to war, whether we tell the truth about the war – are fundamental moral and religious questions.

So the right wing narrows and restricts, and a broader, deeper conversation would really challenge the agenda of the right which values wealth over work, and favors the rich over the poor, and basically in foreign policy, sees war as a first resort and not a last resort.

The l
eft, on the other hand ... well there was a Democratic Party a few decades ago that was vitally linked to a civil rights movement led by black churches. And every major social reform movement in America has been in part fueled by religion, by faith – abolition of slavery, women's suffrage, child labor law reform and, of course, civil rights.

But now, in the last several decades, the Democrats have become increasingly uncomfortable with the language of religion, faith – even values sometimes – and they sound very secular. They even sound, to many, hostile to religion. I know a lot of religious people who share the Democrats' social agenda – in fact, I'm more progressive than the Democrats often are – but they feel disrespected by Democrats for applying their faith or their values.

So Democrats have to recover their heart and their soul. They need to understand the separation of church and state does not mean the segregation of moral values and religious discourse – religious language, even – f
rom public life. Where would we be if the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., had kept his faith to himself? He did it with a Bible in one hand and the Constitution in the other hand, and had a moral discourse on politics in a way that he made everybody feel invited and no one got left out.

Let's move on to the issue of inclusion versus exclusion. If we look at the Bush administration and its fundamentalist supporters, they exclude anyone that they believe has not been "saved" by Jesus. In fact, you probably recall that both Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell indicated they thought the 9/11 horrific tragedy was a result of America having become a morally fallen nation. You [promote] the politics of inclusion – working with different denominations, and different religions. So, in a society where there is officially a separation of church and state, how does one work with different religions? And even though people pray to gods of their own religion, what brings the values together?[/b:e3fb5b93
e7]

Well, having had two debates this week with Jerry Falwell, I want to tell you that he excludes me. Listen – religion doesn't have a monopoly on morality, and that should be clearly stated. What we're finding in this book tour and in my book signings – from Austin, Texas to Dayton, Ohio to wherever we go – the usual reading to 50 people sitting quietly in their seats has grown to be town meetings with 400 people sitting on the floor.

And they're not just large crowds, they're diverse crowds. You've got evangelicals who don't feel represented by Jerry Falwell. You've got Catholics who feel the bishops – the right-wing bishops who command them to single-issue voting only on abortion, and ignore all the rest of Catholic social teaching – they don't feel spoken for by them. You've got mainline Protestants who feel left out of the whole conversation and always disrespected. You've got black churches who feel like this is always a white conversation about religion. Latinos, Asian Christia
ns, and a lot of Jews are coming out – rabbis and their congregations. A lot of the synagogues are having book studies on the book. And it's full of Mikah and Amos and Isaiah, and Abraham, Joshua, Hershel, as well as Martin Luther King, Jr. And a lot of the Muslims who are looking for a better, more humane, inclusive religion are coming out to this, too, of course.

A lot of folks who are not religious but would call themselves spiritual are interested, and a whole lot of young people – a whole lot of young people who maybe saw me on Jon Stewart, on The Daily Show, and they are now saying we didn't know that Christians could care about poverty, the environment, or be against the war in Iraq. They didn't know a progressive religion option even existed.

And while that's amazing and sad, it's now heartening that they see that one does exist. So they're coming out in droves – high school kids and college kids and students. We're having these great town meetings, ba
sically. What was going to be a book signing became a town meeting in all these bookstores. And of course we're having it in churches and colleges, too. The country is hungry – hungry – for a new conversation, a better dialogue, on faith, values and politics. And the one thing that's true – I can say after four weeks on the road here – is in regard to faith and values and politics, the monologue of the religious right is now over and a new dialogue has begun.

[b]I'll paraphrase what you said on the Jon Stewart show. You said that Jesus, if He were here today and in the White House, wouldn't have begun His work by starting a war and lowering taxes for the wealthiest people in the country.

Well, it was really kind of funny. Jon, and I made a nice connection on the show – I just liked him a lot. He said, 'So, Jim, you want to apply religion ... to politics?' And I could feel like millions of his audience saying, 'Oh, no – Jon's got some wacky right-wing evangelical
. It's going to ruin my favorite show.' And I said, 'Well, Jon, I hardly think that Jesus' two first priorities would have been a capital gains tax cut and the occupation of Iraq.' And the audience started to relax and think, 'Yeah!' and cheered.

At one point [in the show], my favorite – I cited the 25th chapter of Matthew, where Jesus says, "I was hungry. I was thirsty. I was naked. I was sick. I was a stranger. I was in prison. And you didn't come to see me. You didn't minister to me." And they say, we didn't know – "When did we see you hungry, thirsty, naked, sick, stranger, in prison?" And as He says, "As you've done to the least of these, you've done to Me." And so the audience – this young audience – cheered for Matthew 25. I thought it was great.

And then I said, "How did Jesus become pro-rich, pro-war, and only pro-American?" And I'll tell you, the response from that youthful, pretty secular crowd of people in the audience and around the country has been just overwhelming. F
irst of all, it shows you how many people watch Jon's show. Lots of people watch the show, and not just young people. But to have that conversation and break open the stereotype – this, in the cultural zeitgeist, the stereotype still is, religious equals right wing. And if this book helps to break that stereotype, I will be very happy indeed.

I'm looking at parts three, four and five of your book – "When Did Jesus Become Pro-War?" "When Did Jesus Become Pro-Rich?" "When Did Jesus Become a Selective Moralist?" Within the Christian denominations and certainly vis-à-vis President Bush and his fundamentalist supporters, there is a difference of opinion – a battle – over Jesus at this point. If you are a Christian, what are you to make of this?

Well, I think, you know, the real battle is not between being religious and being secular. That's the old battle. The real battle is between very different versions of faith, very different versions of what it means to be religi
ous. I don't quibble with George Bush's piety, his personal faith. I don't think it's fake or fraudulent. But I challenge his theology.

And so basically we have a real debate about what faith means in the world. Like you said before, is it exclusive or inclusive? Does it support a prosperity gospel that basically says the rich are so because of God's blessing, and the poor are so because of their own failings and their own faults? Or is this a God who stands on the side of the poor, like the prophets do, and challenge the rich and powerful to change their ways and their policies?

Is this a God who is somehow an American God who has called America to lead a war on terrorism, and even the president to do that? Or as Jesus said, don't just see the [splinter] in your adversary's eye, but also the one in your own eye. Just to see evil in the faces of Sept. 11 is one thing. Of course, anybody who can't see evil in the face of Sept. 11 is suffering from some kind of postmodern relativism, I sup
pose. But to say they are evil and we are good is bad theology. It's simply bad theology and it leads to bad foreign policy.

I'm not quite sure of the implications of what you've said about moving from a secular to a a religious society. I regard a secular society as a society that includes all faiths or people who don't have faith. ... And it means, not that society is without religion, but that the government doesn't impose any one religion or religious interpretation ... on all the people of society because people have the right to believe in their own faith, or not believe in a faith. I just want to know if you are comfortable with that definition of secular.

Yes. I was saying that, when I was growing up, it was often viewed as a real battle between religion – us – and secularism – secular humanism. That's always the big fight. I'm saying no – within the religious community, the real battle is what kind of faith are we talking about?

There are diffe
rent versions, different visions of faith that are really in a serious debate now, a serious dialogue. And in the religious community, there's a real debate about what they feel. I've had big debates, as I mentioned, with Jerry Falwell. We have very different visions and versions of the Christian faith – very different.

Now we live in a democratic, pluralistic, very diverse society in which we believe strongly in the separation of church and state. And that means the government does not establish religion, does not establish one religion over others, or doesn't establish religion over unbelief. There's no distinction between whether a citizen is religious or not.

In the public square, we have a moral discourse on politics. We don't vote for somebody who prays the most often or has learned the most Bible verses or goes to church the most often. We don't ask about the religiosity of a candidate. We ask about their moral compass – what is their moral sense of politics? And if faith shapes tha
t, then it's fine to learn about how their faith shapes their moral compass, whether they're a Joe Lieberman or a George Bush or a John Edwards or Barack Obama.

But in the public square, religion has to be disciplined by democracy. That means you don't enter the public square and say I'm religious so I ought to win. Or God has spoken to me directly and I have the fix for Social Security. You say my faith motivates me. It shapes my convictions or it compels me to act on behalf of the poor or peace or whatever.

But then you say, here is my best offering on this question, and I have to persuade my fellow citizens. I have to persuade them that what I think is best for the common good – not that it's the best religious vision, but it's best for all of us.

Martin Luther King had a wonderful vision of the beloved community, where everybody had a place at the table, and especially those who were left out and left behind had a front-row seat, you know? But then he said, now we need a civil
rights law. And by 1964, he persuaded his fellow citizens and the Congress that this was good for the country. In 1965, we got the Voting Rights Act. So he had to persuade – he and all the civil rights religious leaders, they didn't say, you know, this should happen because I'm a Baptist or because I'm a Jew. They said this is best for the country. So religion has to operate under the democratic discipline and argue what's best for the common good.

You live in D.C., where you have devoted yourself to empowering those who are poor, to try to move beyond their poverty into mainstream society and become productive citizens and move up the ladder of economic opportunity. In your deeds, you carry out your religious convictions. Do you think that, at least with the Jerry Falwells of the world, and the Pat Robertsons, there is a disconnect between the language of theology – their religious assertions – and their deeds? Do they seem more concerned with criticizing people who don't share thei
r interpretation of the Bible than in doing the type of deeds that you are doing from day to day, such as helping the poor in D.C.?

Well, in the New Testament, it says, "Faith without works is dead." So unless there are deeds – unless there is action to carry out faith, and even to show that it's real – then faith – that's a pretty strong word – is dead.

I was asked to do a national television interview with Brian Williams on Inauguration Day. They wanted my perspective because God is almost always invoked when a president is sworn in. But I said days like this remind me of the prophet Amos when he said, 'Take away from me the noise of your solemn assemblies, but let justice roll down like waters, and righteousness like an ever-flowing stream.'

So I think religion has to be taken to the street. It has to be real on the ground. And I also think Christians ought to be those who lead by example. Religious people – I mean, the best rabbis I know, the best priests and pastor
s I know, the best lay people I know, are the ones who just do their faith. You know, they don't just proclaim their faith, they do their faith. St. Francis once said, 'Always preach the gospel, and use words if necessary.' You know, so he's making your point. He's saying it's what we do. That's the key. And then people say, 'Why do you do all these things?' And I say: 'Oh, it's because of my faith, because I think that's what Jesus is calling me to do and I'm trying to be a follower of Jesus.' So I think putting faith into action is critical.

I also think the prophets had very strong words to say about kings and rulers and judges and employers and all the rest. They didn't hold back. But the people Jesus had the strongest words for were the hypocritical rulers, both religious and political, where people were just mostly saying what was wrong with somebody else. And I think religion has gotten into that too often, rather than calling us all to a higher standard. I always say the best way
to find common ground is to move to higher ground.

Let me close by paraphrasing something Susan Jacoby brought up in an interview we did recently, a famous statement Abraham Lincoln made about the Civil War. He said, in essence, I can't say whether God is on our side, but my great concern is to be on the side of God. That seems to be emblematic of much of what we're discussing. President Bush says God is on his side. He has said he was selected by God to be president, that he was leading a Crusade, although he backtracked on that comment, and that God had chosen him to lead this war against Iraq, and that God is on his side. This is pretty definitive. As you say, perhaps he indeed believes that. Lincoln, on the other hand, said we must hope we are on the side of God, which is a very different emphasis.

Yes, you're right. These are the two ways of bringing God into public life. This is our American history. One is God on our side, and that leads to the worst thing
s in politics. It leads to overconfidence and hubris – triumphalism – and often to bad foreign policy, often to wars, and in this case, now pre-emptive, unilateral war.

The other way about worrying – praying earnestly if we're on God's side – brings into politics the things that we're missing today, like humility and penitence and reflection, and even accountability.

Lincoln got it right. We don't claim God's blessing on our politics and policies. We don't claim that God is on our side. We worry, we pray, we just always examine ourselves to see if we are on God's side. And if Lincoln got it right, I think Martin Luther King did it best. With that Bible in one hand and the Constitution in the other hand, he really didn't pronounce, he persuaded. He didn't shut people out; he invited everybody in to a moral discourse on politics. And he said we can do better. We can do better than this by our democratic values, by our religious values.

We have to ask what kind of people do we want
to be, what kind of nation do we want to have, what kind of world do you want to leave for our children. And when every major progressive social movement in our nation's history was fueled and driven in part by religion, by faith, by moral values, we have a very powerful, prophetic and progressive religious tradition in America and around the world.

I think of my friends – Desmond Tutu in South Africa and Oscar Romero in El Salvador, the Archbishop there set against the junta and the U.S.-supported military dictatorship – and all these movements around the world where religion has been progressive.

I had a wonderful experience in Memphis recently. I wanted to get a cab, and a 23-year-old African-American woman who was a bellhop at the hotel was helping me find a cab. She sees the book under my arm and says, 'Oh, God's Politics, all my friends are talking about that book. Is it good?' Then the two older bellhops, who knew I was preaching in town, whispered to her
that I wrote it. She said, 'Oh, I'm sorry.' I told her, 'Don't be sorry – that's great!'

And the technicians who worked with me before a TV appearance said to me, we saw you on this, we saw you on that ... we don't normally listen to the people we wire up, but we're all listening this morning. When ordinary people are having this conversation about what faith and values mean to our politics, that's just the best!

[Gelin*]

Biblical christianity was established 2,000 years ago by the One who came to fulfill the requirements of the Law of Moses. Centuries later Rome came with its own version, which was subsequently followed by all the various branches whe know today. Interestingly enough, the "branching" still continues. Now, how can anybody <B>today</B> (theologian or not) pretend that they own God or God's grace? Isn't that a form of spiritual myopia?

<I>Nan zafè relijyon, tout voum se dlo papa!</I>

gelin

[Marilyn*]

Gelin asked:

... how can anybody today (theologian or not) pretend that they own God or God's grace?

They shouldn't. They have no right to do so. That's what's so upsetting to me (as a Christian) when I hear so many Right-Wing Christian Conservatives speaking that way and see so many Right-Wing Conservative Christians acting that way.

And when they morph Christianity with American Nationalism, I want to puke.


Gelin also asked:

Isn't that a form of spiritual myopia?

Yes, at the very least.

But it's much worse than that.

To "pwomennen toupatou" like George W. Bush does, acting unilaterally not only on the world stage but within the national context -- bypassing legal processes and systems of checks and balances because his personal God and Alberto Gonzales have given him the green light ...

nWell, it's worse than myopic, worse than embarrassing: it's downright lethal!


That's what I found refreshing about the above article. It demonstrated a humility and inclusiveness not seen much these days with regard to American Christianity.

It gave me a bit of hope.

Marilyn

[Gelin*]

...And when they morph Christianity with American Nationalism, I want to puke...

I was teaching an adult bible class one day and a brother was making a comment on the state of the country from a moral and spiritual standpoint. In essence, he was saying that unless America repents, God was going to send his judgement on the land. His scripture reference was 1 Peter 4:17-18 which states the following:

For it is time for judgment to begin <B>with the family of God;</B> and if it begins with us, what will the outcome be for those who do not obey the gospel of God? And, “If it is hard for <B>the righteous</B> to be saved, what will become of <B>the ungodly and the sinner</B>?"

Being the one in charge of the class, I had to remind him as clearly as I could that this verse talks specifically about the body of believers across time and space, and not a
bout America or any other country. Apparently, he did not fully appreciate the fact that I reminded him that America is a country and not the Chruch of Jesus-Christ. It's one thing to be a believer and a good citizen, but it's quite another to willingly confuse the identity of body of Christ (the church) with a nation. America is a great country with a lot of christian believers and historically also with a lot of christian influence. But that's all.

gelin

[Marilyn*]

Gelin wrote:

I was teaching an adult bible class one day and a brother was making a comment ... Being the one in charge of the class, I had to remind him ... that America is a country and not the Church of Jesus-Christ. It's one thing to be a believer and a good citizen, but it's quite another to willingly confuse the identity of [the] body of Christ (the church) with a nation.

Gelin, I want to thank you for that.

Not just for sharing this with Ann Pale.

But for doing what you did -- right then and there -- in the midst of everyday life.

That's where each of us makes our individual impact on this world -- for good or for bad.

Thanks again for confronting the lie which has taken such strong root -- along with the prosperity gospel -- within the U.S. church.

Marilyn

[Gelin*]

...Thanks again for confronting the lie which has taken such strong root -- along with the prosperity gospel -- within the U.S. church.

Sometimes I wonder why it's so easy for people to believe unscriptural teachings while they have the scriptures and can read and study for themselves.

Just the other day, I heard a preacher on TV say that their business is to build the kingdom and not the church. And he explained that to build the church (or churches) is the business of Jesus because he is the one who said "...I will build my church..." He was as clear as possible that he is not doing the same thing Jesus did and that the two of them have a different agenda. Now, why would <I>christians</I> be any different from <I>Christ</I> in their practice and teachings?

gelin

[Marilyn*]

Gelin lamented:

Sometimes I wonder why it's so easy for people to believe unscriptural teachings while they have the scriptures and can read and study for themselves.

Gelin,

For more than 2 decades my contextualization was the Evangelical Wing of the Protestant Church in the United States.

From the time I was 19 years old until I was almost 40.

Coming from the Catholic Church, which during the 1950s and 60s still forbad the faithful from reading the Bible without the presence and interpretation of a priest, I was hungry for Scriptural truth and read and studied the Bible voraciously.

I put myself on a regime whereby I read the Bible through twice each year. I took the principles contained therein very, very seriously and appropriated those principles to my personal life and to my relationships with those around me. As I grew in faith and obedience to the Scriptures, I
found that my world grew. It was if I had started out in Jerusalem and then spread out to Judea and then to the uttermost parts of the earth.

It did not take long for me to realize, however, that most of the Christians around me were not doing the same. They were going to Church and Bible Study and Prayer Meeting and Sunday School, letting the church leaders pre-digest Scriptural truth for them, and they took in the Christian pablum only during those public occasions.

They did not cultivate the inner life, apart from their pastors and Sunday School teachers and the crowds.


Their lives showed it:

- As my family was divesting itself of "things" and property, the others were digging deeper into "the prosperity gospel";

and

- As my family was embracing wider and wider circles of humanity, the others were huddling together closer in their xenophobia and ethnocentrism.


And their words showed it:

- When my husband died in 1973, they comforted me with t
he words: If your husband had been closer to God, he'd still be alive. He must have had some secret sin and God was punishing him for it.

- When my spine crumbled and I had to have those back surgeries, they comforted me with the words: God would have protected you and healed you without surgery, if you did not have some secret sin.

- When the going got rough financially, they comforted me with the words: God provides for His own. If you lack anything, it's because you lack faith. There has to be something you did to cut yourself off from his provision.


Long before I was 40, I realized I had little in common with these people. And I'm not talking about one little congregation. As an international conference speaker during those years, "these people", for me, numbered in the tens of thousands and represented hundreds and hundreds of different churches.

We knew a different God. We lived in d
ifferent worlds.

To believe as they did and still do, I would have had to suspend belief, as one must do when viewing a Hollywood film.

I would have to leave my conscience and brain at the door.


That I could not do, so for many years I lived my life, grounded in the Scriptures, but as far away as possible from these people. I stayed out of their place and they stayed out of mine.

That formula worked for a number of years. But, not anymore!

Now, they're all over our television screens, running our country, dismantling our social safety net, deciding what we can say, what we can see, what we can do, where we can go...

It's a nightmare, which is only going to get worse.

Because so few of them actually read the Word of God and appropriate the truths to their personal and corporate lives.

And so many of them believe the lie as told to them by Ralph Reed and the Christian Coalition, which years ago co-opted the local church and now passes on to them "the
pseudo-Christian Right-Wing political daily spin" via their pastors and lay leaders.

It's quite a system.

Too bad it's so damned effective!


Marilyn

http://hometown.aol.com/marilinc/MM-Crisci.htm

[Gelin*]

- When <B>my husband died</B> in 1973, they comforted me with the words: If your husband had been closer to God, he'd still be alive. He must have had some secret sin and God was punishing him for it.

- When <B>my spine crumbled</B> and I had to have those back surgeries, they comforted me with the words: God would have protected you and healed you without surgery, if you did not have some secret sin.

- When <B>the going got rough financially</B>, they comforted me with the words: God provides for His own. If you lack anything, it's because you lack faith. There has to be something you did to cut yourself off from his provision.

Death....illness....financial difficulties? Well, that must be a curse. Right? This was e-x-a-c-t-l-y the attitude of Job's friends when they came to vis
it him during his time of trial. Instead of comforting him with love and taking care of his needs (as they should) they were exceedingly happy to blame him as if he was responsible for his (temporary) misfortunes. God himself said they were wrong, and even commanded Job to pray for them. Here, I remember Lemane!

Now, if you can stretch that arrogant attitude to the situation of Haiti it becomes clear that (in the minds of these holier-than-thou believers) <I>God must be punishing the haitian people for some sin their forefathers had committed long ago in their fight for independance from slavery</I>. This has been the theological argument used by so many christian leaders (foreign and national) to explain Haiti's misery to themselves and to others (willing to listen). How wrong they are...


gelin

[Marilyn*]

Gelin wrote:

Now, if you can stretch that arrogant attitude to the situation of Haiti it becomes clear that (in the minds of these holier-than-thou believers) God must be punishing the haitian people for some sin their forefathers had committed long ago in their fight for independance from slavery. This has been the theological argument used by so many christian leaders (foreign and national) to explain Haiti's misery to themselves and to others (willing to listen). How wrong they are...

Exactly, Gelin.

It would seem that the closer I drew over the years to the Haitian People, the more I got to experience at least a tiny portion of the antipathy that Haitians have experienced at the hands of those holier-than-thou believers.

And guess what my response was, Gelin?

Call me pig-headed and stubborn, but I drew even clo
ser to the Haitian People!

As an individual, I took on some of their concerns which those "holier-than-thou" types either refused to address because those issues and concerns were at cross purposes with their agenda or they could not even see that they needed to be addressed.


- That's why I spent 7 1/2 years of my spare time long ago, typing the Haitian Creole Bible, so that a digitized version of it could exist, so that experts way beyond me could address the issue that the spelling system of the 1985 Haitian Bible Society Bible could be brought up to official orthographical standards.

The Universal Bible Society in Geneva? They told me that it took 30 years to produce that flawed edition and they lacked the staff and finances to devote to something so superficial as mere spelling!


- That's why I went on to create the software that could orthographically update older texts produced in older spelling systems.

The Canadian Bible Society near Toronto? They told me th
ey could not use the software because they had so heavily invested in equipment that was not computer-based.


- That's why Pauris Jean-Baptiste was obliged to spend years out of his busy life to manually edit the Haitian Creole Bible, only to have the Canadian Bible Society send back to him proofs of the texts, utterly corrupted because their typesetter did not know Haitian Creole! Go figure!

But Pauris and I got our heads together early on in the project. And the new corrected version is now available, produced by the Haitian Bible Society!


Life is full of this, Gelin, as you well know. I sense it in your writings.

Each one of us must choose sides in so many small and big ways.


I have chosen to honor God and to honor the Haitian People by way of the skills God has put at my fingertips.

And leave the crowd of "holier-than-thou" types behind.


My husband was a lay preacher.

He once preached a sermon on "Weaving Daisy Chains".

It was
a story about a bunch of New Englanders who lived by the seaside. From their vantage point, over the years, they witnessed many shipwrecks. So they built a rudimentary lighthouse to try to warn ships at sea to stay away from the rocky coast. Each townperson took turns at night and during times of thick fog "manning" the lighthouse, making sure that the kerosene lantern still had fuel. But after a while, some of the folks tired and held a meeting, trying to figure out whether times of thick fog justified their having to leave what they were doing to have to worry about those sailors at sea. After the passage of a bit more time, some of the folks complained that the rudimentary nature of the lighthouse allowed too much of the wind and rain to enter, making their job more difficult and uncomfortable. So they built a more modern, more airtight structure. Wow. They even laid down a nice rug to make the inside cozy. A little bit more time passed and someone got the bright idea: Hey, if we change from kerosene to el
ectricity, we wouldn't have to go to the lighthouse just to see if the light is still lit. One night, there was a terrible storm. And a ship was wrecked upon the rocks. Fortunately, some seamen survived and managed to walk up to the lighthouse. They knocked. They yelled. Nobody heard them at first. Because all the townfolks were inside having a party. There was music. There were refreshments. Some of the young girls were weaving daisies into little crowns to wear on their heads. Finally, a young boy asked. Don't you hear a noise at the door? They turned down the music and, sure enough, there was knocking and shouting at the door. The mayor opened the door to find a bunch of wet, sandy, bloody seamen at their door. Help us, the seamen cried. The mayor said, Wait outside. We can't have you dragging in the sand and mud. And we'd never get the blood out of the rug. Besides, what would the finely-dressed ladies think, seeing unkempt people like you? The boy will see to your needs outside.

Moral of the s
tory: An institution can outlive its usefulness and get diverted to lesser uses (such as keeping the rug dry and weaving daisy-chains) when it loses sight of its reason for being.


Marilyn

[Gelin*]

...It would seem that the closer I drew over the years to the Haitian People, the more I got to experience at least a tiny portion of the <B>antipathy</B> that Haitians have experienced at the hands of those holier-than-thou believers...

An antipathy veiled most of the times but very clear on occasions...My heart is frequently heavy because of such an attitude on the part of supposedly ministers of the Gospel of love, truth and light.

As for you, certainly the God of heaven will bless you for all you have invested into that tiny nation. We are all grateful for your contributions and sacrifices. Continue to show his pure love as much as you can.

It's much easier to destroy than to build.

gelin