Assignment | Lesson 1 | Service and Justice

I chose to listen to John F Kennedy’s speech to the Ministerial Association, as I thought it would be interesting to hear how people of faith were thinking about religion in the public sphere in the 1960s, and how to balance this separation of church and state against a desire for moral leadership.

Interestingly, I think the Catholic vs Protestant friction was more prevalent then than it seems to be today. There was a lot of concern that JFK somehow would be “beholden” to the Vatican or the Roman Catholic church as a political figure. Fast forward to today, and I don’t think anyone would argue that the American Evangelical church doesn’t have a strong influence on our elected officials. 

For me, what this displays is that faith can influence our overall set of morals and ideals, but we also have the public duty to live out those values without infringing on other’s abilities to do the same. We should all seek our own conscience to live in a way that satisfies our personal beliefs, but in a pluralistic and ecumenical way as to not discount or limit other various faith-based voices from the public square. In this way, we are working towards an anti-oppressive vision for both the church and for our public leadership, where one religious perspective is not privileged over another.

One question that emerged from the Religious News Service panel is this: Given that this video was produced in 2017 at the start of the first Trump administration, and given that we have since seen many actions that seem to defy the values of many Christians (related to racism, immigration, healthcare, and more), what does the continued silence among evangelicals say about how religious leadership is formed, maintained, and held accountable?

I chose President Reagan’s “Evil Empire” speech because, while Reagan is considered a Disciple of Christ, he has some very conflicting ideas with what my own beliefs are. 

Apart from expressing opinions that I don’t adhere to, what troubles me most about this speech is that I felt it was politicizing religion to gain support from the Evangelical community. He starts off by saying that our democracy and freedom are rooted in faith and religion, and while I don’t disagree with that, I felt that he was using this notion to further agendas according to his own morality. 

I grew up in a time when Reagan was president. I was in first grade when he was shot. I feel that this was my first real knowledge of the concept of the presidency and the importance of this person in our country and lives. I remember him saying “Tear down that wall” and feeling proud of America’s fight for what I thought was fighting for people who were being suppressed in other parts of the world. I feel that this speech tells me that our fight for other people’s freedom is sometimes conditional based on what we believe ourselves to be right and good. 

A question that comes up for me is is it real freedom if we are forcing our ideals on our own people and those we have helped to free? How do we allow our faith to not interfere with other people’s freedom?

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

I chose to read Frederick Douglass‘s “The meaning of July 4 for the Negro,” delivered on July 5, 1852, 10 years before the Emancipation Proclamation. I chose this speech to compare what Douglass was saying about racism and Christianity in the United States , and contrast that with what I’m constantly thinking about with respect to racism and Christianity in this country, today more than 170 years later.

I am led to ask myself, ‘How in the world can so many who profess to be Christian, support and believe in a system or person that is clearly not about Christ. I found a video on YouTube https://youtu.be/sQTCrcbuMXo?si=ZG_IFpfFlHbelBHc , which provided some insight that made a whole lot of sense to me.

These days, I especially think about that how, even as words, “Christianity”, and “Patriotism” have been co-opted and made to appear as if the current President, his administration, and its supporters own sole rights to their use; and by using them to describe one’s self, one paints a picture of a white male draped in an American flag, wearing a MAGA hat.

But, using Christianity to justify injustice in plain sight, and not doing anything to oppose it seems to be consistent with this nation. In his speech, Douglass said,

“ America is false to the past, false to the present and solemnly binds herself to be false to the future.

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

In reading this speech, What resonated with me most is that I believe little has changed with respect to how in this country, Christianity has, and continues to be twisted and used as justification for the injustices that continue to be heaped upon the oppressed, who have generally been anyone that isn’t a white male.

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

Because I’ve been a member of the PSWR Anti-Racism/Pro-Reconciliation Committee for a few years now, this fits with my current understanding of racism in this country. In Anti-racism education, racism is defined as race prejudice + the misuse of power. To me, that’s what’s happening at the highest level in the U.S. today.

1. 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

The question that occurred to me as a result of watching the panel discussion about the first Trump administration was, in light of what we see happening under this second Trump administration, I wonder how the conversation would go with the same group of panelists today?

I often wonder what their thoughts would be today as well, Annie! So much is different. I don't think we were prepared for what was coming. It was unimaginable I suppose. It still is.

I chose to review the “Evil Empire Speech” by Ronald Reagan for this assignment for two reasons. The first is that I had never read the words of the speech, though I have heard it referenced many times. I thought it was time to see for myself what he had to say. The other is that I have an interest in exploring how someone from the same denomination and faith tradition could have such widely divergent views from myself and most folks I interact with within the tradition.

Part of what surprised me in this address is how far away it seems to be from the Christian Nationalism that my community seeks to oppose in our current context. Yes, Reagan’s stances are conservative and still in opposition to many of my (and my community’s) values - for example, his discussion of reproductive healthcare as ‘on demand abortion’ and linking that in a slippery slope argument to infanticide - yet the sharp edge of rhetoric had not yet excised language about loving one’s neighbor. There seems to still have been a (somewhat naive) value of diversity and pride in what the civil rights movement had accomplished. I can see how this movement of 40 years ago would have been infuriating to people within my current context. However, it does at least provide some points of connection and opportunities for meaningful debate or conversation in a way that I just do not see today in the current iteration of Republican leadership.

In terms of what I've been taught, the person of Reagan as portrayed here does seem to match what I’ve learned about him from elders, peers and other historic presentations. (I am not old enough to remember directly.) However, what he says does not align with values that I’ve been taught as a Christian. Particularly the line he repeated in a few different ways about ‘freedom prospering when religion is vibrant and the rule of law under God is acknowledged’ does not sit right with me. There are too many unjust laws to assume that all are under the authority and guidance of God and religion has sought too much control over people historically to believe that it only produces freedom.

A question I have from the materials this week is what kind of conversation the panel would have had at the end of Trump’s first presidency. Would they have identified Christian Nationalism and the harm it had caused? How did the polls change throughout his first term compared to where they began?

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

I watched the speech "A Call to Renewal" by former U.S. president Barrack Obama and the reason why I chose it is because I was interested to see Obama's response to how faith, politics, and morality should interact in public life.

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

What resonated with me is how Obama addressed the importance of faith not only in his own personal life, but into politics and how that looks in public life. We live in a fragmented world and through our faith we can bridge the gap between not only other Christians of different denominations, but other religions, secular Americans, and opposing political beliefs in reference to the pluralistic society we live in.

What troubled me is the actual practicality of this belief and how to approach it in an effective way to bridge the gap between the political climate of our nation where bipartisanship is polarizing our country to extremes.

What this speech informed me in relation to where I live (Salt Lake City, Utah) is that although Utah is a predominantly religious state (LDS church) it is important to fellowship and work together with other churches, groups, people within the community.

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

As a lay leader in a men's ministry at my church this fits in with what I have been taught. I always extend an invite to those of different religious affiliations, ethnic backgrounds, nonreligious belief, sexual orientations, and to members of the community. God's love is indiscriminate and extends to all and so should ours as Disciples and this speech has confirmed my approach to ministry.

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

A question that surfaced for me during the religious panel is does the panel show religion as a unifying or divisive force in the early Trump administration?