Assignment | Lesson 1 | Service and Justice

TA TEST

I chose to read the Emerson "Divinity School Address", because I was interested in the critique of, for what was to Emerson, “modern Christianity”. I found that it is still relevant to the issues the church faces today. Emerson noted that the church was in decline (in 1838), and I contend that it is still struggling today, due to a short-sighted or one-sided view of “what does this all mean”? Emerson writes that churches are “not built on his (Jesus’) principles, but on his tropes”, which is such a true statement especially as it relates to the American evangelical church in 2025. 

Where I think I diverge with Emerson is that it seems like he is advocating that those religious institutions are either “bad” or at least “antithetical” to the “real” moral sentiment, which is solely within one-self. If all the answers are within us, then what need do we have for God? After this limited exposure to Emerson, I’m not entirely sure how he would respond.

Separately, a question that came up for me during the Trump Admin panel video: Why is it that the “Christian Right” view is often considered the default for Christianity, and that “Christian Left” is the alternative view? That bias seems to come up again and again, where those of us who consider ourselves to be “progressive Christians” always have to defend our views as being aligned with the faith.

I read, God’s Judgement of White America (The Chickens Come Home to Roost)

By Malcolm X, because I was pulled in by the title. Who are the chickens?

What resonated with me about this speech is the “holy anger” that is heard throughout. A reasonable response to the actions of the politicians and powers that be of his time and in our time. His desire for both justice and judgment, is a common ground for the many who have suffered at the hand of oppression and injustice. But the understanding or definition of justice can be obscured, depending on who is defining it. 

Although I do not agree with his sentiment of the non-violent activist of that time, I can understand the irritation and notion of wanting, needing more to be done. Jesus did, in fact, flip tables. But nonetheless, I believe that there is a third way. 

Question:

The panel predicted many current developments. As religious leaders, what strategies could we have engaged with to better respond to these outcomes while honoring the separation of church and state? When, if ever, is crossing that boundary justified?

1. Here’s the speech I read (and why I chose it).

For my reading, I chose the letter from Thomas Jefferson, written to the Danbury Baptist Association of Connecticut. I was drawn to that one in particular because of the words “wall of separation” in the description, and I wanted to read something of that time when the country was first starting to sort out the separation between church and state through experience, not just words in the Declaration of Independence.

2. Here’s what resonated/troubled me/informed me related to where I live/work.

The letter that Thomas Jefferson wrote speaks to the concern that people had about religious persecution during those times, and he differentiates between the church and the person in his writing, explaining that religion is personal between each person and God, church is the establishment. Being born and raised in Los Angeles, taking in the context of the time when this was written, it gave me some reflection on the things that I have taken for granted in my space during these times. I have had the privilege of experiencing the beauty of other religions because of where I live and the diversity that is here, all while never feeling that my own religion was at risk. I also am aware that I was raised Catholic, and that the Judeo-Christian foundations of this country unknowingly gave me a sense of safety that others did not have. Just using the term “church and state” when speaking of the division between the two is slanted toward a Christian perspective and doesn’t allow for spaces of other religions which don’t even use the word “church”.

3. Here’s how it fits/doesn’t fit with what I have already been taught.

Thinking back to what I was taught in school, how Jefferson explained the separation of the two makes sense to what I learned as to how it was intended to be. To me, this does not fit for where we are now. Separating the institutions from the ability to have power in the government allows us to have religious freedom without persecution. I’m not sure we’ve ever had true separation, but I feel that any “wall of separation” that has been there is getting shorter and shorter. 

4. Here’s a question that surfaced for me from the speech, Sandhya’s video, or the panel on religious responses to the first Trump administration.

I have SO many questions that come up from this, but I will stick with one. Is the “wall of separation between Church and State” truly attainable?

1) Why I chose MLK's letter from Birmingham jail I chose Martin Luther King junior's letter because I was struck by how he was labeled and extremist and his response was that "Jesus was an extremist for love" that line is so powerful it turns the word extremist on its head and shows how being extremists for justice and love can be honorable. He was punished because laws and institutions at the time protected segregation entreated peaceful civil disobedience as a crime.

2)What troubled me most is realizing how recent these events were and that similar injustice still happens to this day the letter made me sad because many people who called themselves Christians & Catholics supported and tolerated segregation. King criticizes religious leader who valued order over Justice while claiming faith and allowing harm is heartbreaking and shows how people and institutions can fail morally even when they profess good beliefs.

3)How this letter fits our life now, King's idea still fits to this day because injustice repeats in different forms we see conflicts around religion freedom of speech and people being harmed for speaking out. The letter reminds us that freedom equality requires constant work King's call to nonviolent principled action is useful now too it encourages standing up what's for what's wrong and right while avoiding violence it warns us to watch out for patterns that resurface over time.

4)A question I have now I wonder why religion and politics are often mixed so strongly Beliefs are used to justify political decisions it can make a debate more extreme and less open to comprise within each other. Either way you are bound to be criticized or treated as if you committed a crime. I am left wondering how to not let religion beliefs determine my political stand .

Here’s the speech I read (and why I chose it)

I read the speech/letter by Thomas Jefferson, along with the Declaration of Independence. I found that particularly interesting because of the present state of the US government and the place that religion seems to be playing in that government.

Here’s what resonated/troubled me/informed me related to where I live/work

As I read through the Declaration and then the letter from Thomas Jefferson, I was intrigued by the list of grievances against the British government and how it seems that some of those are similar to events happening in the US right now. Further, it may be possible that the present political rhetoric around connections between church and state contradict Jefferson’s perspective on the separation of church and state as a foundational principle of the Declaration.

Here’s how it fits/doesn’t fit with what I have already been taught

I don’t know if I’ve been taught, or if I have just learned or accepted throughout most of my life, that diversity is a healthy and positive divine design. Up until 2016, I thought that most Americans were evolving toward not just a more appreciative, open, and accepting point of view of diversity, but also were embracing the beauty of that design.

Here’s a question that surfaced for me from the speech, Sandhya’s video, or the panel on religious responses to the first Trump administration

Are we evolving, or are we devolving as a nation, as individuals, and as a species? How do we reconcile this state of humanity with a contemporary and dynamic “God” of the ages and of all creation whose design continually propels us forward into growth?