by Christine A. Scheller | Feb 7, 2012 | Feature, Headline News |
Unemployment Fell, but Remains High
The Labor Department reported on Friday that the unemployment rate fell to 8.3 percent in January from a high of 10 percent in late 2009, but unemployment still “remains higher than it has been for any presidential election since the Great Depression,” The New York Times reported.
Encouraging, but a Long Way to Go
“This report is encouraging, but it still underscores how far a distance we have to go and how many people are still long-term unemployed and disconnected from the workforce,” Harvard economist Lawrence Katz told The Huffington Post. “Even if we were willing to say that the scars of the great recession mean a couple of million people drop out permanently, we still have many years to go before we get back to where we were.”
Don’t Expect ‘Full Employment Until 2012
More precisely, the year began with fewer workers employed than in January 2001, said economist Paul Krugman at The New York Times. “At January’s pace of job creation it would take us until 2019 to return to full employment,” said Krugman.
Private Sector Remains Engine of Growth
“The private sector remained the engine of growth,” according to The Times. “While federal agencies and local governments continued to lay off workers, businesses added 257,000 net new jobs in January. The biggest gains were in manufacturing, professional and business services, and leisure and hospitality.”
Companies Looking to the Future
“The past several recent jobs reports seem to indicate that private companies are beginning to look toward the future and consider hiring,” Brian Hamilton, CEO of financial information company Sageworks Inc. told Forbes. “We don’t know if the positive jobs trend will continue, but it is definitely a good trend,” he said.
Politicians Disagree on Interpretation
Republicans “downplayed” the report, “describing the improvements as welcome but ‘anemic,’” Fox News reported. “The White House, meanwhile, cited the report as ‘encouraging’ evidence that the economy is on the upswing, and urged Congress to support jobs measures backed by President Obama to keep that trend going.”
It’s All Good
“The strangest thing about January’s jobs report is that it’s pretty much all good,” said Ezra Klein at The Washington Post. “The bottom line is that this isn’t just a good jobs report. It’s a recovery jobs report.”
Austery Measures Will Backfire
Krugman warned however that renewed calls for federal austerity measures would backfire. “The sad truth is that the good jobs numbers have definitely made it less likely that the Fed will take the expansionary action it should. So here’s what needs to be said about the latest numbers: yes, we’re doing a bit better, but no, things are not O.K. — not remotely O.K. This is still a terrible economy, and policy makers should be doing much more than they are to make it better,” said Krugman.
What do you think?
Is there reason to be optimistic about the economy?
by Christine A. Scheller | Feb 6, 2012 | Feature, Headline News |
As more than 60 New York City churches prepare for their last Sunday worship services in the public schools from which they are scheduled to be evicted February 12, the frustration of some involved in the fight to overturn a city-wide public school worship ban spilled over to prominent city pastors who these warriors say have been silent on the issue.
Unconscionable Silence
This morning, when UrbanFaith talked to Rev. Bill Devlin, co-chair of Right to Worship, the group that has been spearheading efforts to overturn the ban, he was on his way to Albany to meet with state legislators about pending legislation that would allow religious groups to keep meeting in the city’s public schools, and to witness voting on a state senate version of the bill. It has since passed in a 54-7 vote but will need approval of the full Assembly and the governor’s signature before becoming law.
Devlin said he and others had been trying to engage prominent New York City pastors on the issue for about four weeks.
“We have called them personally. We have sent letters. We have left personal notes. We have had personal meetings. We have called them on their cell phones. We have talked to their surrogates as well. We have done everything, I think, humanly possible, to plead with these brother pastors that their fellow pastors are getting evicted as of February 12, 2012. It’s highly unfortunate that we’re not getting any kind of a response from any of them,” said Devlin.
He said he knows Rev. Tim Keller and several people in the “higher echelon” of leadership at Keller’s Redeemer Presbyterian Church in Manhattan, and had talked to some of these leaders over the weekend. He and another source who asked to remain anonymous, but who is affiliated with one of the affected churches, both said Redeemer was expected to issue a statement on the pending evictions this afternoon. UrbanFaith could not independently confirm this as multiple emails and phone calls to Keller and his associates went unanswered.
“I find it really unconscionable that fellow pastors who have been ministering alongside together with these larger churches, particularly going back to 9/11 and the efforts there, that now there’s a deafening silence,” said Devlin. “The pastors that are being affected, they’re sad, brokenhearted. They wish that their fellow brothers would come alongside.”
Building Inside Relationships
Rev. Dr. A.R. Bernard, pastor of the Christian Cultural Center in Brooklyn, told UrbanFaith that he addressed the issue with his congregation Sunday and that some members had participated in a 17,000 person protest walk over the Brooklyn Bridge January 26.
“My methodology, of course, is not marching across the bridge,” said Bernard. “It’s building relationships inside and trying to create influence.”
Bernard expressed concern about “moving parts,” “unseen agendas,” and “outside entities” at play in the battle.
“The concerns are if there’s any extended period of time that allows a defensive and offensive to build against those who would like to see this enforced. It’s an unfortunate situation, but it’s not as easy as ‘We’re being discriminated against,’” said Bernard.
Nonetheless, he affirmed the ministries of the affected churches and expressed unequivocal support for them.
“I am in support of these churches. They should do everything within their power to try to stop this from happening, to try and overturn it. … I believe that there is no harm whatsoever in continuing historical accommodations that have been made to the churches,” said Bernard.
However, he also said, “I understand my influence. When I get up and make a statement, there’s a lot of weight put on it, and I want to make sure it’s an intelligent statement, not based on hearsay or people’s opinions. So I have to be very careful in what I say. Both the church community and the state weighs what I have to say.”
Where Were They for the Same-sex Marriage Battle?
Bishop Joseph Mattera, pastor of Resurrection Church of New York in Brooklyn, bristled at the notion that he hadn’t been involved in public efforts to overturn the ban, saying he had been working on the state level while city councilman Rev. Fernando Cabrera had led efforts locally.
“Basically I’m the one who got the legislation to be done with my contact with leading senators. I worked about six weeks non-stop on this thing, behind the scenes, calling, talking to the mayor’s aide, talking to senators, assembly people. My staff didn’t even hardly see me for six weeks,” said Mattera.
He said he met with the New York City schools chancellor Dennis M. Walcott, attended a city-wide prayer gathering, and encouraged evangelical leaders at a Texas meeting about the presidential campaign to publicize the plight of affected churches nationally. The only thing he hasn’t done, Mattera said, is attend press conferences because of scheduling conflicts.
Mattera compared this battle to the fight against same-sex marriage in New York City, saying he spearheaded that effort and pastors of prominent churches failed to speak up then too.
“I warned a lot of these pastors who didn’t stand with us that if you didn’t stand up for traditional marriage then religious freedom would be taken next. A lot of these guys complaining weren’t there for the ten year battle,” said Mattera.
Offer Space instead of Taking Advantage
Bishop Roderick R. Caesar, pastor of Bethel Gospel Tabernacle Fellowship International in Jamaica, Queens, also said he has been “vocal” in his support of the affected churches.
“I have made my calls to city government, letting them know I felt that they were doing us a disservice,” said Caesar.
He too offered unequivocal support for the churches, saying congregations with facilities and extra space should offer it to the soon-to-be homeless churches “instead of looking at that as an opportunity for us to glean members.”
“Separation of church and state has nothing to do with real estate. It has everything to do with forced religion. The manner in which the people who framed these new policies have interpreted the law is detrimental to what the law was intended,” said Caesar.
He described the Board of Education ban as “a plot” by people who “want to stamp out any influence that the church could be for the good of a community” and said it will remove an income stream that schools have used to subsidize programs that benefit children.
“There’s a ripple effect, and I really think that the mayor was a little hasty in his decisions and knowing government, I think they’re trying to find a tactful way to back down, if that’s possible, without saying they were wrong, because they don’t like to admit fault,” said Caesar.
Update:
Rev. Dr. Floyd H. Flake, pastor of Greater Allen A.M.E. Cathedral of New York in Jamaica, Queens, emailed the following statement after UrbanFaith went to press with this story:
“I am aware of several churches that had their beginnings in a public school. In almost every case they were able to over time raise enough funding to build their own church facility. Since most schools are closed on Sunday, I see no reason why they could not be used by churches that are trying to build up their congregations. The majority of these congregations, that I am aware of, have no intentions of making the school a permanent location for their worship. I believe that the process that has been in place has worked extremely well and has caused a minimum of problems for city schools. Therefore, I would urge that they are allowed to continue even if it is necessary to sign an agreement regarding how many years they anticipate having to use space in the schools.”
Update 2:
Rev. Dr. Tim Keller, pastor of Redeemer Presbyterian Church in Manhattan, released a statement in support of the affected churches Feb. 7. It said in part, ‘I am grieved that New York City is planning to take the unwise step of removing 68 churches from the spaces that they rent in public schools. …I disagree with the opinion written by Judge Pierre Leval that: “A worship service is an act of organized religion that consecrates the place in which it is performed, making it a church.’ This is an erroneous theological judgment; I know of no Christian church or denomination that believes that merely holding a service in a building somehow ‘consecrates’ it, setting it apart from all common or profane use. To base a legal opinion on such a superstitious view is surely invalid. Conversely, we concur with Judge John Walker’s dissenting opinion that this ban constitutes viewpoint discrimination and raises no legitimate Establishment Clause concerns. A disproportionate number of churches that are affected by this prohibition are not wealthy, established communities of faith. They are ones who possess the fewest resources and many work with the poor. Redeemer has many ties with those churches and their pastors, and our church community invests time and resources to assist them to be good neighbors in their communities.”
What do you think?
Should New York City’s influential pastors speak up on behalf of their soon-to-be homeless brethren?
by Christine A. Scheller | Feb 3, 2012 | Feature, Headline News |
The President Breaks It to Them Gently
President Barack Obama “personally” broke the news to two influential Catholic leaders (New York Archbishop Timothy Dolan and Sister Carol Keehan, “a pivotal supporter” of the Affordable Care Act) that his health care law would require Catholic hospitals and universities to provide contraception in their employee health plans, Politico reported.
Catholic Bishops Object
“Bishops and lay Catholic leaders across the United States have made it clear that we cannot comply with this unjust law without compromising our convictions and undermining the Catholic identity of many of our service ministries,” said ArchBishop Charles Chaput of Philadelphia, according to according to the National Catholic Register.
Who Speaks for Rank-and-File Catholics?
“It is crucial in this dispute to distinguish between the Catholic hierarchy and rank-and-file Catholics,” said Stephen Prothero at CNN. “Are the only ‘real Catholics’ in America the priests decrying the new Obama administration policy and the 2% of U.S. Catholic women who rely only on ‘natural’ birth control? Who is to speak for the other 98%?” he asked.
A ‘Courageous Decision’
“I am going to stick with my fellow Catholics in supporting the administration on this. I think it was a very courageous decision that they made, and I support it,” said House Minoirity Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Ca.) when questioned by CNSNews.com
‘Obama Threw Progressive Catholics Under the Bus’
“Obama threw his progressive Catholic allies under the bus and strengthened the hand of those inside the Church who had originally sought to derail the health-care law,” said Catholic Washington Post columnist E.J. Dionne Jr.
Romney Pounces; Gets Pounced Upon
Presidential hopeful Mitt Romney accused the president of ordering ‘religious organizations to violate their conscience,’ but once took a similar step, The Boston Globe reported.
The White House Stands Firm
“There was extensive and careful consideration as this policy was developed and a decision was made. And the issue here is we want to be sure women, all women, have access to good health care,” White House spokesman Jay Carney told The Washington Post when the issue started to heat up.
What Qualifies as a Religious Institution?
Associated Press reporter Rachel Zoll said the decision “raises a complex and sensitive legal question: Which institutions qualify as religious and can be exempt from the mandate?”
“For a church, mosque or synagogue, the answer is mostly straightforward. But for the massive network of religious-run social service agencies there is no simple solution,” said Zoll.
Evangelicals and Catholics Together Again
Evangelicals and Catholics are outraged and petitioning, The Christian Post reported.
‘Paying for the Privilege of Violating One’s Conscience’
“There would have been no controversy at all if President Obama had simply exempted religious institutions and ministries. But the administration insisted that the University of Notre Dame and St. Mary’s Hospital be forced to pay for the privilege of violating their convictions. Obama chose to substantially burden a religious belief, by the most intrusive means, for a less-than-compelling state purpose — a marginal increase in access to contraceptives that are easily available elsewhere,” said Former George H.W. Bush speechwriter Michael Gerson in his syndicated column.
What Do You Think
Should there be a conscience clause in federal health care law?
by Christine A. Scheller | Feb 3, 2012 | Feature, Headline News |
Since the emergence of Occupy Wall Street last year and the subsequent rise of the Occupy movement in cities across America, many have viewed them as a liberal counterpart to the conservative Tea Party movement. But how accurate is that analysis?
UrbanFaith columnist Andrew Wilkes supports the Occupy movement’s “efforts to shift the public conversation from a narrow focus on deficits and a libertarian view of government and free markets to one that addresses income inequality and the easy translation of economic power into disproportionate political power on an international stage.” Rafael Rivadeneira, president of the Illinois Chapter of the Republican National Hispanic Assembly, shares “core beliefs of small/limited government, fiscal responsibility, constitutional adherence, free markets, personal responsibility and individual freedom” with the Tea Party movement. UrbanFaith posed a series of questions to both men in an effort to foster respectful dialogue and to explore areas of possible common ground. The pair answered the following questions, then were given the opportunity to respond to each other’s answers. The dialogue has been edited for length and clarity.
How Different Are They?
UrbanFaith: A Public Religion Research Institute poll that compared Tea Party supporters and Occupy supporters found some predictable differences between them. Among them are the fact that 85% of Tea Party supporters are white, one-third of whom are white evangelical Protestants, while 28% of Occupy supporters have no formal religious affiliation and a “sizeable minority” (37%) are people of color. Occupy supporters also tend to be considerably younger than Tea Party supporters. What do these statistics say to you? And, are there are areas of agreement between the two groups that might resonate with the 46% of respondents who said they didn’t identify with either movement?
Tea Party supporter Rafael Rivadeneira
Rivadeneira: A lot of people are fed-up with greed and waste. The Tea Partiers and the Occupiers are operating out of that same frustration, but Tea Partiers aim more at government greed and waste and Occupiers at corporate greed and waste. Of course, it’d be wonderful to see both the Tea Party and Occupy movement more diverse and representative of various races and ethnicities, religions and socio-economic standings, but I don’t believe that we need to look at these numbers and declare that one of these movements is more inclusive or more racist—or whatever wants to be said—than the other.
I’m a Hispanic Mainline Christian and I certainly don’t feel like an outcast based on any of that within the Tea Party. I’d imagine that a conservative white evangelical could say the same thing about the Occupy movement. When people agree on ideas and purpose, I’m not sure that race and religion get too much in the way. That the majority of Americans say neither movement resonates with them makes sense. Most Americans aren’t involved in politics and most Americans consider themselves “moderate.” Neither the Tea Party or the Occupiers are moderate positions, necessarily, and for the most part the members are active—or at least paying attention to—politics.
Wilkes: Many Americans are split between left-wing and right-wing populism. Chris Hedges, a former New York Times writer, tells a story about a veteran running for office in upstate New York that illustrates the point. He is frustrated by long-term unemployment, a fragile economic recovery, and the underwhelming performance of both political parties. Both movements, on one level, are an organized reaction to the perceived failure of established forms of dealmaking in our politics.
This poll, along with public opinion synthesis conducted by the Opportunity Agenda, suggests that many Americans share the three foregoing sentiments. The prognosis of each movement is different, but the diagnosis to some extent is shared – America needs to restore economic opportunity, particularly on the issue of jobs and education.
Rivadeneira: Absolutely. Consistently we have seen increased government regulation and the power of the teachers unions get in the way of economic and educational opportunity. There are many wonderful public schools, of course, and many wonderful teachers doing amazing work with few resources. However, I’m a big fan of charter schools and vouchers so that parents–ALL parents–have a choice in where their kids are educated. Choice in education leads to greater economic opportunities for individuals and communities.
Occupy supporter Andrew Wilkes
Wilkes: Various communities within the Occupy movement are concerned with corruption and ineptitude within both the public and private sector, but especially the financial sector. Despite Rafael’s personal comfort within the Tea Party, many Latino-Americans are put off by the nativist language that the Republican party and Tea Parties have used in the past.
Theologically conservative white evangelicals may very well be comfortable within the Occupy movement. It is highly unlikely, however, that politically conservative white evangelicals will not feel like “outcasts” within the Occupy movement. The untold story of the Occupy movement is that progressive voices of faith–progressive here referring to politics and economics–are organizing within the broader movement.
Is Race a Factor?
UrbanFaith: Last fall, The Washington Post asked “why blacks aren’t embracing Occupy Wall Street” when it “might seem like a movement that would resonate with black Americans.” Why aren’t blacks occupying?
Rivadeneira: I can’t speak for the black community, but there are other ways to protest and fight injustice than by setting up tents and hanging in public parks.
Wilkes: Black folks are indeed occupying. There’s Occupy the Hood. Some are involved in various Occupy Faith movements across the country. More recently, Occupy the Dream represents a broad attempt by black church clergy to reinvigorate its tradition of social justice rooted in Jesus’ liberating ministry, the prophets, and so on. It is true however, that a small minority of African-Americans are involved in Occupying. But at every stage in American history, from the abolitionist and suffrage movements to the civil rights and anti-apartheid movements it has been small groups of folks dedicated to making social change happen, not the majority
Rivadeneira: Small groups make big differences.
Do Tea Partiers Harbor Racial Resentment?
UrbanFaith: In a report produced for the NAACP, The Institute for Research & Education on Human Reports found that white Tea Partiers are more likely than other whites to downplay the problems faced by African Americans. They also tend to hold negative opinions about African Americans’ work ethic. Almost three-quarters told pollsters that government programs aimed at providing a social safety net for poor people actually encourage them to remain poor. One-fourth said the Obama administration favors blacks over whites, and three-fourths said the president doesn’t understand the needs of people like them or “share the values most Americans try to live by.” What, if anything, do these statistics prove?
Rivadeneira: I’m not sure that the findings “prove” anything, but here’s my take on government programs: I certainly don’t believe that “too much has been made of the problems facing black people.” As a minority, I’m well aware of the racism that exists—and the issues that stem from groups of people believing you are “less than.” But I know that this racism doesn’t respect party lines. I’ve faced racism from Liberal Democrats and Conservative Republicans (and every sort of moderate) alike. So I’m not ready to support any claims that the Tea Party is racist. Certainly some Tea Partiers are. But so are some Occupiers.
As to government “safety nets,” while certainly there is a place for public assistance, the truth is: many politicians delight in keeping people dependent on government (in one way or the other) because it gives politicians tremendous power over their constituents. So often big-government promises are less about helping and more about keeping people under government’s thumb. It sounds harsh, but it’s true. This is why we get so much fear-mongering in politics. Politicians want people afraid of how they’ll suffer if there is less help from the government.
I realize that many communities or people have battles ahead of them that are harder than many will ever have to face—failing schools, desperate poverty, cycles of abuse. So we can’t ignore that. But nor should we think that more government is always the answer.
Continued on page 2.
by Christine A. Scheller | Jan 30, 2012 | Feature, Headline News |
Bishop T.D. Jakes
Bishop T.D. Jakes has embraced an orthodox view of the Trinity and no longer holds a “Oneness” view of the Godhead (as noted in our interview with theologian Estrelda Alexander), that says the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three aspects of one God rather than three distinct persons, Baptist Press reported.
A Room Full of Elephants
Jakes was interviewed by Seattle pastor Mark Driscoll and pastor James MacDonald at MacDonald’s suburban-Chicago church during the second annual Elephant Room conference, where evangelical Christian leaders gathered to discuss potentially divisive topics.
Russell D. Moore, dean of the school of theology at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky, told Christianity Today he takes the bishop at his word about his newfound orthodoxy, but apparently wasn’t all that impressed, saying, “A Christian pastor affirming least-common-denominator Christian doctrine should hardly be news, much less an elephant in the room. This can only happen in an American evangelicalism that values success, novelty and celebrity more than church accountability.”
What Jakes believes matters a whole lot to The Gospel Coalition, a theologically conservative group whose leaders “allegedly began pressuring MacDonald to ‘pull the plug’ on Bishop Jakes’ appearance at the Elephant Room conference, which eventually led MacDonald to resign as a TGC council member,” according to The Christian Post.
Texas pastor Voddie Bauchman said in a blog post that he was invited to participate in the conference after another pastor pulled out over Jakes’ inclusion. Bauchman ultimately declined, in part because he views the Word of Faith gospel that Jakes preaches as “heterodox” and “harmful” and he says Jakes’ influence in the Dallas area has been “negative, at best.” Bauchman, who is African American, also was concerned that his invitation would be viewed as tokenism.
Loving Issues More Than People
At the event, MacDonald said hosting Jakes had cost him relationships, The Christian Post reported. Jakes said affirming belief in the Trinity had cost him relationships with Oneness Pentecostals, who now apparently view him as a heretic.
Calling theologically Reformed critics of the discussion to repent of their love of issues over people, Memphis Pastor Bryan Crawford Loritts highlighted a race angle in the controversy, writing on his blog that “the implicit message that is being sent is that the varsity section of the kingdom of heaven in 2012 is white, middle aged and Reformed.” He finds this “disheartening.”
Humbly Stepping Into the Firestorm
Loritts also noted Bishop Jakes’ humilty in response to Driscoll, who is himself under scrutiny for alleged spiritual abuse. “This is the man that’s been on the cover of Time Magazine, and yet he steps into the firestorm and is willing to be questioned and opened up for ridicule,” Loritts said of Jakes.
Texas pastor Brandon Smith also noted Jakes’ humility in an open letter to the bishop that was published at the SBC Voices blog. Smith went to college at Dallas Baptist University, near Jakes’ The Potter’s House, and expressed regret for having previously judged the bishop harshly.
At his Lifeway Research blog, Ed Stetzer noted that Jakes said much the same thing about his evolving Trinitarian views on a 2010 Australian radio program. Apparently few American evangelicals heard him.
Speaking ‘Undignified’ Truth
Credo House Ministries founder C. Michael Patton was cautiously optimistic about Jakes’ newfound orthodoxy in a post at his Parchment & Pen blog, saying he appreciated the Bishops’ reminder that “none of our books on the Godhead will be on sale in heaven.” He noted, however, that among his peers it would be “undignified” for him to quote T.D. Jakes.
What do you think?
Are you glad to hear Bishop Jakes affirming orthodox beliefs about the Godhead?
