"The Micah Challenge" Sends Letter to America's Churches....

reading this article challenged me. it inspired me. it made me hurt for my brothers and sisters outside of the privileged world. it reminded me that each time a child dies, jesus weeps and dies with them. each time a person goes hungry, jesus stomach hurts with theirs. each time a brutal oppressor exercises his muscle over a weaker group of people, jesus feels it. and each time we do nothing, we starve jesus. we beat jesus into submission. we kill god in the name of comfort.

what response does it stir up in you?

August, 2008


TO THE CHURCH IN THE UNITED STATES


As the Church of the Lord in what is known as the "Southern" part of the world, moved by the Holy Spirit to fight for the abundant life that Jesus Christ offers, we address our Christian family in the United States, a Church of the same covenant, faith and love. Grace and Peace to all of our brothers and sisters.


We know your works of love; these works have allowed millions of human beings for many generations in our countries in the South to receive the gospel, the Grace of Jesus Christ and the power of His Salvation. The U.S. church's untiring missionary effort planted in our lands Hope in Him who came to reconcile EVERYTHING.


Nevertheless, the political, social and economic situation in the places where this hope has been announced is increasingly distressing. Millions of people in the global South are dying of hunger, violence and injustice. These situations of poverty and pain are not simply the product of the internal functions of our countries; rather they are the results of the international policies of the governments that wield global power.


Therefore, we have this against you, brothers and sisters, that along with this powerful announcing of the Gospel, the Church from the United States has not also raised its voice in protest against the injustices that powerful governments and institutions are inflicting on the global South - injustices that afflict the lives and ecosystems of millions of people who, centuries after the proclamation of the Gospel, still have not seen the sweat of their brow turned into bread.


The worsening inequality and poverty in the South is alarming. Seven years since the United States and 191 other nations publicly promised to cut extreme global poverty in half by the year 2015 through the eight Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), your country has made only a little progress towards fulfilling its commitments.


The MDGs should stir us to action because they echo the calls of the biblical prophets for justice and equity. Further, they are achievable and measurable markers on the roadmap to end extreme global poverty.


And so we ask you as sisters and brothers, citizens of the wealthiest most powerful nation on earth, to publicly challenge your candidates and political leaders - now and after the elections are over - to lead the world in the struggle to cut global poverty in half by 2015. If you who know the Truth will not speak for us who will?


The Church in the United States has the opportunity today to be faithful to the Hope that it preaches. We urge you to remember that the Hope to which you were called as a messenger demands that you seek first the Kingdom of God and God's justice.


Out of love for us, the global Church, in holiness, use your citizenship responsibly for the benefit of the entire world; it is for this very reason that the Lord poured out His life on the Cross.


All who have ears, let them hear what the Lord says to His Church.



Ndaba Mazabane

President

Association of Evangelicals in Southern Africa


Bishop Gerry Seale

General Secretary/CEO

Evangelical Association of the Caribbean


Dr. Richard Howell

General Secretary

Evangelical Fellowship of India


Rev Moss Ntlha

General Secretary

Evangelical Alliance of South Africa


C. Rene Padilla

President

Kairos (Peru)


Pastor Owen Isaacs

General Secretary

Evangelical Fellowship of Botswana


Bishop Efraim Tendero

President

Philippine Council of Evangelical Churches


Rev Heng Cheng

General Secretary/CEO

Evangelical Fellowship of Cambodia


Bishop Paul Mususu

Executive Director/CEO

Evangelical Fellowship of Zambia


Rev Bambang Semedi

General Secretary

Southern Part Sumatera Christian Church


Dr. Reynaldo R. Avante

National Coordinator

Micah Challenge Philippines

Bishop Mano Rumalshah

Bishop

Diocese of Peshawar (Pakistan)


Alfonso Weiland

Co-founder

Paz y Esperanza (Peru)


Erika Izquierdo

Paz y Esperanza (Peru)


Lawrence Tempfwe

National Facilitator

Micah Challenge Zambia


Rev Joe Simfukwe

Principal

Bible College of Central Africa


João Pedro Martins

National Coordinator

Micah Challenge Portugal


Rev Soleman Batti

Chairman

The Toraja Church (Indonesia)


Rev Untung S.K. Wijayaputra

President

The Toraja Mamasa Church (Indonesia)


d'Karlo Pyrba

Director

YABIMA Foundation (Indonesia)


Semuel Takajanji

Director

Kuda Putih Sejahtera Foundation (Indonesia)


Rev Iskandar Saher

Executive Director

Center for the Development of Holistic Ministry (Indonesia)


Gahungu Bunini*

General Secretary

Evangelical Alliance of Rwanda

*Signed on with the names of 16 pastors in the Evangelical Alliance of Rwanda



Bishop Mano Rumalshah

Bishop

Diocese of Peshawar (Pakistan)



Rev Michael Dasey

Rector

Gungahlin Anglican Church (Australia)



Rev Geoffrey Taylor

Director

SoulSupply (Australia)



Rev. Paul Craig

Senior Pastor

Diamond Valley Baptist Church (Australia)



Rev Greg Templeton

Pastor
Sydenham Baptist Church (Australia)



Morris Alex

Pastor

Souls Outreach Church



Captain Robert Casburn,

Commanding Officer

The salvation Army Northern Waves Fellowship (Australia)

Why I Am Voting for Barack Obama... --Brian McLaren

link

Why I'm Voting for Barack Obama - and Why I Hope You Will Too ... Reason 2

[This is part of an ongoing series. I am speaking as a private citizen and not as a representative of any group.]
Reason 2: Leadership Integrity
I am voting for Barack Obama because I value personal integrity in leaders. Personal integrity requires a leader to repudiate falsehood, hate hypocrisy, and pursue fidelity to justice and truth, in private and in public. A person shows a pattern of integrity through fidelity to his or her spouse, through his or her refusal to employ falsehood for personal advantage, and through his or her willingness to admit mistakes and forgo excuses or blame-shifting whenever lapses occur. It seems clear to me that Senator Obama surpasses his counterpart on all counts.
Sadly, tragically even, Senator McCain has not repudiated the proven dishonesty and deceit of the Bush-Rove-Cheney years. In fact, his campaign has been outstripping even Bush-Cheney-Rove in misleading the public with a straight face while claiming straight talk. Even fellow Republicans are finding McCain's tactics indefensible. Recalling the old saying about all being fair in love and war, McCain seems to see the world through a consummate warrior narrative (see EMC, Part 5), which leads him to love winning at all costs – including the expense of integrity, which in turn makes fidelity to “the reality-based community” quaint and only advisable when it is advantageous. Yes, all of us have lapses in integrity at times; all of us need grace. As a deeply flawed yet committed Christian, I am the first to affirm this. But when you look at personal and public patterns of integrity over many years, Barack Obama shines and John McCain stumbles badly.
But my concern is not only John McCain. I’m also terribly concerned about the party that nominated him. I don’t believe that a party that rushes to war based on a false pretenses deserves to be re-elected, no matter how loudly it claims to be for "family values" or "small-town values." Do you? Is there an integrity lapse more serious than this?

Some of us believe that the Bush-Cheney administration was sincerely mistaken about weapons of mass destruction in their build-up to war. In this view, we went to war because of a failure of intelligence. It was an honest mistake, some say – being careful to remember that the honesty of the mistake does not minimize its seriousness. Others of us believe that Bush-Rove-Cheney cynically manipulated the data – and us, the American people - to legitimize a war they wanted to prosecute for other reasons. In this view, it was a dishonest abuse of power. Either way, whether because of a deficit of good intelligence or a deficit of integrity, I believe that a party that puts so many American and Iraqi lives in harm’s way without sufficient cause does not deserve to be re-elected. They should be sent into the penalty box for at least one period or given a red card for at least one game. How can they be rewarded with another presidency?
If the Bush-Rove-Cheney party had repudiated their false premises for going to war, it might be different. If McCain had been true to his “maverick” reputation and had stood against the Bush-Cheney failure in intelligence and/or integrity, perhaps voting for him could be reconciled with a high commitment to integrity. But McCain has been the opposite of a maverick on the war’s “weapons of mass destruction” justification, and on the idea of pre-emptive war on which it stands.
Senator Obama has been the maverick. He stood against the war from the beginning. He wasn’t beguiled by “false intelligence” and he wasn’t fooled by a beguiling rationale. This reason alone would put me in Obama’s camp. I’ll raise the question once more: Does a party that creates a pre-emptive war based on false claims or poor intelligence deserve to be rewarded with another term?
Of course, we could add to the duplicity about WMD many other Bush-Rove-Cheney betrayals of integrity: hidden prison camps, Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, torture, forged letters, the Valerie Plame incident, and so on. We could talk about the Republican duplicity of giving massive tax cuts to the rich while saddling the next generation with a record national debt, a classic case of robbing an unborn Peter to pay a fat-and-happy Paul. We could also lament how Senator McCain has stooped to the same kind of Rovian electioneering tactics that President Bush used against him so unfairly in 2000, and so on. Beneath all these issues, one issue is obvious: if we reward with another term in office a party that has deceived or misled us, we will get what we deserve.
I believe that Senator Obama is an extraordinary candidate. While his opponent indulges in surprisingly dishonest and divisive attack ads, Obama has resisted responding in kind, instead focusing on critical issues and "a new spirit of unity and shared responsibility." But even if Barack Obama were merely mediocre, simply based on the failures of the Republican Party to hold their president and vice president accountable for their lack of integrity (and/or intelligence) over these last eight years, I believe it’s high time for a change.
The American people have been fooled once already in this new century. Those who fooled us should not be rewarded with another term. I hope we won't let ourselves be fooled again.

Why I Am Voting for Barack Obama... --Brian McLaren

link

Why I'm Voting for Obama, and Why I Hope You Will Too: Reason 1
Reason 1: Framing Story

[Note: over the next few weeks, I'll be posting a number of personal reflections on the political campaign. I am only speaking as a private citizen, not as the representative of any group.]

My top reason for supporting Barack Obama for president centers in the narrative I believe he frames his life and work by, in contrast to the narrative John McCain frames his life and work by. To me, this issue of narrative (or framing story, for readers of my book Everything Must Change) means far more in a president than whether he claims to be liberal or conservative, religious or nonreligious, Christian or otherwise, Democrat or Republican.

Does anyone doubt that Senator McCain lives by a warrior narrative? This is the most consistent theme in his campaign. For him the world is clearly divided into us and them.


We are good; they are evil. We are right; they are wrong. We are about safety; they are about danger.

This dualistic and fearful narrative is deeply rooted in McCain’s generation. They were formed in the simple, binary context of Axis and Allies, and then Communists and Free World. When Communism collapsed, a new antagonist conveniently presented itself (pre-empting the expected "peace dividend" and keeping the famed "military-industrial complex" well funded). This new war became what McCain calls “the transcendent challenge of the 21st century,” the clash of the West with fundamentalist Islam. McCain’s word “transcendent” is significant. It suggests a kind of holy war mentality, because for McCain, these us-them dualisms are absolute and therefore of a cosmic, metaphysical, even spiritual nature.



The dualistic us-them mindset, I believe, is bogus and dangerous. It is a self-fulfilling prophecy. It is, ironically, the same narrative that drives “fundamentalist Islam,” and so by following it, we will become more and more like those we call our enemies. We already have done so in recent years, in fact, with torture and secret prison camps and the like. This warrior narrative is what Senator McCain has most dangerously in common with President Bush. This “transcendent war” narrative is what we are in most desperate need of changing through this election.

Think about where this warrior narrative can lead in the next four years. From war with Iraq to war with Iran, maybe even war with Russia, any of which would likely require the reinstatement of the draft since our troops have been stretched to the breaking point over the last four years. Soccer and hockey moms who are comforted by McCain's warrior posture should keep this in mind, because there may well be an unanticipated downside to his fighter mindset.

Senator Obama certainly believes in a strong national defense. But I believe he leans toward a profoundly different narrative. It is a reconciliation narrative, a peace-building narrative, a collaboration narrative. He made it clear when he said he would change President Bush’s policy of not talking to our enemies. McCain and others tried to portray this alternative approach as cowardice and appeasement, but they were wrong. Instead of dividing the world into “us” and “them,” Obama’s narrative seeks to bring people together in a expanding us. While McCain’s narrative only offers enemies surrender and defeat, Obama’s offers them the possibility of reconciliation.

I favor Obama’s narrative or framing story because of two convictions I hold very deeply and passionately.

First, I am a committed Christian, and I believe a narrative of reconciliation is in harmony with the teachings of Jesus. Conversely, a narrative of domination and defeat is not: it is the way of Caesar, or what Jesus called “the kingdoms of this world.” I believe that at the core of Jesus’ teaching is the world's truly transcendent challenge and call – to rise above the old narrative of “love your brother and hate your enemy.” In other words, rather than to “transcendent war,” I believe God’s call to all people is toward transcendent reconciliation. I am convinced that war is inherently non-transcendent. It is, in fact, anti-transcendent. I feel the God-given call to love enemies and seek reconciliation and eventual collaboration rather than domination and defeat and extermination. I know that many Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, agnostics, and atheists would feel a similar revulsion to voting an energetic promoter of a warrior narrative into office for another four years (or more).

Second, I believe we have crossed a threshold in my lifetime. Senator McCain, because of his age and his viewpoint, lives on the older side of that threshold. This doesn’t mean he is evil, but it means he is responding in ways that are no longer appropriate to a world that no longer exists, and in that way, his viewpoint is no longer helpful.

On his side of the threshold, war – including nuclear war - is an option to keep on the table – so that “bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran” slips so easily off the tongue. On this side, war is an abomination, a horrible evil that can never be entered into rashly or lightly (or under false pretenses). On his side, wars can be justified if “we” launch them, but not if “they” do. On this side, they are horrible and tragic no matter who launches them.

On his side, evil resides in them and goodness in us. On this side, there is goodness and evil on both sides.

On his side, the greatest enemy is “them.” On this side, the greatest enemies are realities both “we” and “they” must face together – environmental destruction, carelessness toward the poor, and the death-wish of security through war, for starters.

I believe McCain’s old warrior narrative is simply too dangerous to live by any more. That’s the first reason I am voting for Barack Obama. He would be the first to say that he’s not the Messiah, and he isn’t perfect, but he represents a turning … a turning away from the fear-based Bush-Rove-Cheney-McCain warrior narrative, and a turning toward a narrative that seeks peace through reconciliation and creative collaboration rather than through domination and a go-it-alone cowboy/bomber mentality. We’re not just voting for a president this year: we’re voting for a framing story our nation will live by, or kill by.

Tony Campolo on abortion...

Tony's Post on God's Politics

Wednesday, September 10, 2008
Moving the Abortion Debate Beyond Partisan Purists (by Tony Campolo)
In books and speeches, I have often said that God is neither a Democrat nor a Republican. I have contended that to make either party "The God Party" is idolatry. This, however, does not mean that Christians should abandon political activism. It has been said that all that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good people to do nothing. Consequently, I have long called for Christians to be involved in both political parties, striving to be the "leaven" that permeates both parties with biblically-based judgments and values derived from Christian beliefs.

Taking my own advice, this year I played a part in framing the abortion plank of the Democratic Party's platform. I helped the party to take what some have called a "historic step" by having the party become committed to abortion reduction.

More than 60 percent of all abortions are economically driven. The reality is that without provisions for hospital coverage; pre- and post-natal care; maternity leave so that a woman giving birth will not lose her job; and nursing assistance to help single mothers transition into parenthood, millions of women who want to carry their pregnancies to term will not do so.

The good news is that, with help from Jim Wallis and others, the party platform now calls for these needs to be met. It also calls for educational programs to reduce unwanted pregnancies, with room for the teaching of abstinence, and asks for government agencies to make adoptions easier.

These achievements were lauded by Democrats for Life and by the Catholic Alliance for Life. While at the Democratic National Convention, religious leaders of other faith traditions personally thanked me for my efforts. Even leaders of some pro-choice organizations hailed this compromise, claiming that at last they could find some common ground with pro-life advocates.

Purists, on the other hand, have had hard words for me, claiming that I should not have been involved in any way with a political party that is pro-choice. While I understand their desire to settle for nothing less than the overturning of Roe vs. Wade, I nevertheless believe that my decision to work for abortion reduction was a good one.

Consider these questions: If 10 children are drowning in a swimming pool, and you can only save six of them, should you save the six? Or, should you wait until help arrives that can save them all, even if you know that the six you could save will be lost in the meantime?

To my Christian brothers and sisters who are part of the party that has a pro-life platform, I have to ask whether they are willing to hold the Republican Party to its pro-life commitments. For several years, the Republicans controlled the White House and both houses of Congress, and had a Supreme Court wherein seven of its nine judges were Republican appointees. Yet no effort was made to overturn Roe vs. Wade -- and very little pressure to do something about this was put on Republican leaders by Evangelicals who had given them 82 percent of their votes in 2004. And, are they willing to demand that provisions such as I worked for in the Democratic platform become policies of their party? To fail to do so would be to protect the unborn child and then abandon that child and the mother in the delivery room. And do not raise the matter of how much money these proposals will cost. We all know better than that.

For those who condemn any compromise on this divisive issue of abortion, may I suggest that they consider not paying their taxes since they are financing a government that supports a woman's right to have an abortion -- and in some instances even puts money into organizations that perform them.

There are legitimate concerns about my actions, but I decided that if some of the unborn could be saved, it would be wrong for me not to do what I could to save them.

Tony Campolo is founder of the Evangelical Association for the Promotion of Education (EAPE) and professor emeritus of sociology at Eastern University.

i guess roland martin and i have our minds on the same topic.

roland martin's op-ed on abortion, sex-ed, and bristol palin.

the complexity of abortion...

Abortion at the RNC

I would highly suggest you follow the link above to a recent blog post from Jim Wallis, founder of Sojourners and Call to Renewal.
If you don't know who Jim is, you can check out his bio here.

The number of abortions that take place in our country each year is both astounding and appalling. Recent studies put the number at around 1.3 million per year. This is nothing short of a tragedy.

So what do we do to stop this? And better yet, do any candidates truly seek to reduce the number of abortions, and how? Correct me if I'm wrong, but it is safe to say that if a woman chooses abortion, it is plainly evident that her pregnancy was unwanted. The reasons for not wanting to keep the baby could be one of many (harm to the mother, lack of resources to raise a child, product of rape, etc.), or a combination thereof. But the point is that at some point the mother decides she doesn't want to keep a child. This decision is made 1.3 million times per year in our country.

To me, there are two ways to treat the problem of unwanted pregnancies. The first is to ensure that a woman who doesn't want a baby (for whatever reason) doesn't get pregnant. The second is to ensure that when a woman does become pregnant, she carries the pregnancy to term. It seems to me that there are many ways to tackle each of these treatments, but let me cover just a few. In regards to the first treatment, we must embrace a comprehensive sex education for all young people. This education would show all sides of the issue of sex. This includes teaching about abstinence as the only way to 100% prevent pregnancy (and sti's) but this education shouldn't stop there. Eventually, these young people are going to have sex. Some at a young age. Some on there wedding day for the first time. Regardless of when they become sexually active, they will need to understand their own anatomy and that of their partner. They will also need to understand the dangers of sti's (including hiv/aids) and how to practice safe sex. Again, these people will probably have sex at some point, and if we don't educate them when they are mostly in the public school system, when will we? We have a prime opportunity to reach young people as they physically and emotionally begin the journey to adulthood, and when the majority of them are in the public school system.

To share an example of how abstinence only sex-ed can fail people of all walks of life, I'll share an example of a young Christian boy...me! In high school, my parents opted to place me in the abstinence only class for sex-ed. At the time, I was fully in favor of this decision, as I was abstaining and choosing to wait until marriage to have sex. So what did I learn in abstinence only sex-ed? I'm not really sure. I already was choosing to abstain, and then some grad students from PLU came in and urged us to abstain. (Um, I think we were already choosing that seeing as we were in the class, yes?) Fast forward. I got married. I had sex. I had never been taught how to use contraception. I didn't get to see the student advisors (trained by medical professionals) demonstrate different forms of contraception during sex-ed using props. Now this may also speak to a larger problem (that being parental units who found it extremely difficult to discuss sexual matters) but I'll save that for a different post. Just wanted to share with you a story about the shortfalls of abstinence only education.

The second treatment is one that will certainly require an enormous amount of sensitivity. The process would involve convincing a woman who may be thinking about terminating a pregnancy to not go through with it. This would require an examination of her reasons for her decision, and this again would require an enormous amount of sensitivity. The obvious example is a woman who wants to terminate because of some reason other than her own health or rape. It should certainly be pointed out that there are thousands and thousands of couples strongly desiring to become parents through adoption, and that this woman can give one of those couples that gift. This in turn opens a can of worms regarding our adoption/foster child systems and how each candidate/political party would address their many problems. Saving that for a different post. However, a lesser heard side of the story in regards to a woman terminating pregnancy for a reason other than health or rape is this: cost. Is the woman covered under any kind of insurance? Will the adopting family be asked to pay for the birth mother's medical bills? Can they afford to do that? There are many complex issues surrounding adoption, and we should examine where the candidate we vote for stands on these issues.

And then of course there are the two instances that may stir the most discussion. What if the mother may face adverse health issues because of the pregnancy/delivery? What if the mother faces a possibility of death in pregnancy/delivery? I don't think these questions can be answered simply or cleanly. Philosophical and religious debates about the value of one life versus another, about God's will, etc., will certainly arise when this issue is discussed. And in the case of rape, the necessity of sensitivity reaches it's highest importance and the can of worms only gets bigger and messier.

So what's the point? The point is that abortion cannot and should not be reduced to two warring ideological factions. No political party or candidate is running on the platform that more abortions should be performed. However, one party is clear that they do not want to openly call for a reduction of unwanted pregnancies and therefore abortions, but instead is content to play the old ideological game and talk about pro-life issues but not make an effort to do something tangible and practical.