RSS
More Feeds












God's Politics

Pastor-in-Chief

by Diana Butler Bass 02-10-2009

In this week’s town hall meetings, President Obama demonstrated an important aspect of his office: Pastor-in-Chief.

Americans do not elect a president on the basis of theology or denomination, but we do elect presidents on the basis of how well they comfort us in times of crisis and fear. In Elkhart, Indiana, and Fort Myers, Florida, President Obama listened to people’s concerns and answered questions with a kind of intellectual and emotional honesty that is too often rare in public life. As President Obama heard homeless Henrietta Hughes plead for assistance, I thought of the many times I have held someone’s hand at the church door after preaching and how people pour out their hearts to leaders who listen. As the president engaged the crowd, he maintained the demeanor of pastoral politics—holding the nation’s metaphorical hand and offering comfort, reassurance, and help.

Although Americans separated church and state long before other western countries considered the possibility, we kept the longing that somehow our president would serve in the role of a communal comforter, a leader who would make meaning out of trials and suffering, and steady the rudder of hope. A “pastor” to the nation.

Of course, not every president has had to engage pastoral politics and not everyone has been good at it. And in peaceful times, the nation has no need of a pastor-in-chief. But this is not one of those times.

Abraham Lincoln, whose bicentennial we celebrate this week, was—among other things—a good pastor-in-chief. We do well to remember his words in 1865, at the time of the nation’s worst political crisis:

With malice toward none; with charity for all; with firmness in the right, as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in; to bind up the nation’s wounds; to care for him who shall have borne the battle, and for his widow, and his orphan – to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace, among ourselves, and with all nations.

Pastor-in-chief is only one of the myriad roles we ask our president to embody. We also need President Obama to be a tough politician, a wise coalition builder, a savvy economist, a military commander, and an expert in international relations. We expect a lot. We need a lot. But we are ready to bind the nation’s wounds and care for the sick, widows, and orphans. It is time to both comfort the flock and rally the troops of compassion. In these days, it is good to know that the president is also a pastor.

Diana Butler BassDiana Butler Bass (www.dianabutlerbass.com) is the author of the forthcoming A People’s History of Christianity: The Other Side of the Story (March 2009).

Share or bookmark this post:
  • email
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • del.icio.us
  • Digg
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Mixx
  • NewsVine
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Technorati
  • Yahoo! Bookmarks
advertisement


Comment Code of Conduct

I will express myself with civility, courtesy, and respect for every member of the Sojourners online community, especially toward those with whom I disagree—even if I feel disrespected by them. (Romans 12:17-21)

I will express my disagreements with other community members' ideas without insulting, mocking, or slandering them personally. (Matthew 5:22)

I will not exaggerate others' beliefs nor make unfounded prejudicial assumptions based on labels, categories, or stereotypes. I will always extend the benefit of the doubt. (Ephesians 4:29)

I will hold others accountable by clicking "report" on comments that violate these principles, based not on what ideas are expressed but on how they're expressed. (2 Thessalonians 3:13-15)

I understand that comments reported as abusive are reviewed by Sojourners staff and are subject to removal. Repeat offenders will be blocked from making further comments. (Proverbs 18:7)

  • judithod
    SisterMarie, I would dislike recommending that Obama switch from $2000 suits to sackcloth and ashes. That downgrading of his wardrobe would be too extreme. What I would expect him to do is to lead instead of passing off the leadership to Pelosi and Reid. He was requested to submit suggested stimulus guidelines to Congress but demurred. Did he adopt this stance to avoid blame if the stimulus proves to be ineffective? “Congress engineered the bill, not I.” As I stated in an earlier post, Obama has done a dismal job in explaining the provisions of the bill as well as why it must be passed in such a rush without proper vetting. His speeches, press conference, and writing (editorial in Washington Post) have been comprised exclusively of generalizations and dire warnings. Instead of presenting a calming, executive presence, he has chosen to behave frenetically, jetting around the country as if he were still campaigning, and implying that those who disagree with the plan are “unpatriotic” or playing the partisan card. What he has forgotten is that he’s not the only one who can claim a mandate. Everyone elected to Congress has a mandate. And what happened to fulfilling that promise that American citizens would have 48 hours to review the stimulus legislation before votes were taken? If indeed he wants to try to reclaim his pledge to have an ethical, transparent administration, Obama should have insisted that the promise be fulfilled.
  • Nathan Bedford
    The current president has been in office for exactly 24 days. During that time, he has done more to address the problem (that he inherited) than George Bush did in 8 years. What presidential perks would you have him forgo? Should he don sackcloth and ashes
  • coffeeguy50
    Dear justice,

    Thanks for sharing your thoughts on this. I understand and share with you the sentiments that "government salvation" mindset seems to be on the upswing. That is to be expected though in a swing back to democrats, especially with the democrats being so angry about the prior administration, a strong effort away from those policies is not surprising. Not right, just expected. Sadly, we have become a polarized nation. The only way I see this changing though is with us the people demanding more of our leaders than the same old tired rhetoric. It may taken a generation but we have to start sometime and that time is now.

    As far as the role of government, I have been in local community revitalization for nearly 30 years and at the local level I do see a role for government. The very real problem is the farther away from the local you go in terms of government (regional, state and federal) the less contact our leaders and government staffers with local issues. That reduced contact results in policies that are often mis-guided due to lack of real day to day understanding of people's situations. My "calling" is to do what I can within the local government employing me to focus efforts to meet the needs of those in need in my community. I want to encourage the churches in my community to get involved as well. Then perhaps life will improve for our community and fear, at least in our town, will be replaced by hope and trust.

    Randy
  • coffeeguy50
    JeffP

    And thank you for your response! It is good to here that others have been involved in this issue on the conservative side in other areas! I am encouraged by this. I am sad to here though that those on the left have been opposed to some of these efforts. When are we going to get past these whole left/right ideology and just focus on the call of Christ? If there is anything I can do, information, ideas that might be helpful to what the churches in your area are doing I would be more than happy to share them with you!

    I am really enjoying this conversation by the way. This is my first foray into this Sojo blogging thing and it is good to be involved in an honest discussion and sharing points of view. I really appreciate your thoughts Jeff. A couple of others have responded to my post and I hope those discussion turn out as well as this conversation has.

    God bless you Jeff!

    R
  • judithod
    SisterMarie, believe the discussion concerns the current president, not Bush, and my comments were pointedly directed at Obama's lack of leadership on the stimulus plan. He's presented an interesting study as he alternates between cavorting frenetically about the country, warning about doom and gloom, and enjoying his presidential perks. If the nation has such a dire economic crisis, why isn't Obama choosing to present a calm, businesslike demeanor? Why hasn't he taken the time to outline the main concepts of the proposed legislation in an understandable manner instead of pushing platitudes? In short, why doesn't he choose to lead? And a final question, why the rush to push through a slapdash bill that the CBO and over 200 economists are questioning?
  • kevin47
    The Dow isn't going to respond favorably when a government pledges to enact wage controls.  Obama pledged to enact wage controls.  The Dow did not respond favorably.   




    ________________________________
  • canucklehead
    THEN WE MUST PUT A STOP TO THIS TYRANNY!!! GOD KNOWS THE FIRST THING I DO EVERY MORNING IS CHECK MY POINTS TOTAL ON G-P. IF IT'S NOT POSITIVE, I HAVE TO RETURN TO BED FOR THE BALANCE OF THE DAY. STOP THE POINTS' NAZIS NOW!!!
  • Nathan Bedford
    "I would have felt much more "comforted" if Obama had spent less time on Air Force One, less time hosting parties, less time reading to schoolchildren, less time at Camp David and more time taking the lead on the stimulus plan."

    judithod, were you equally intolerant of former President Bush's time spent away from his duties. From what I understand, last weekend was Obama's first visit to Camp david. GWB visited 116 times for a total of 365 days.
  • BuckeyeDon
    I was saying that you made a post hoc argument: the Dow fell because Obama spoke out against CEO salaries. You'd have to prove that was the reason for the Dow's fall. Canucklehead can answer for the "moral compass" comment.
  • kevin47
    So, if something isn't a moral compass, then contributing to it's failure is a good idea?
  • jeffp
    Wow, I lost points for complementing someone.
  • PASTOR JEFF
    Now that's what I call bi-partisanship. :-)
    I don't think it would be practical for Pres. Obama to offer her his current home. Besides, pastors often don't have their own homes to offer.

    Diana- You are such an innocent provocateur. ;-)
  • jeffp
    Interesting that the President offered kind words and a kiss on the cheek to Henrieta, but it was the wife of a Republican politician who offered her a home.
  • jeffp
    Thanks for your response Randy. God bless you in your service to the poor. My experience is different than yours in some ways. Currently I live in a fairly affluent suburb. The churches in this area have come together to help the poor. These churches represent both evangelical and mainline congregations, though the conservative congregations have been the driving force to start our local Love INC and have been the major funders of the program. The only opposition to the programs have been a few churches on the left.

    Before coming here 5 years ago I pastored churches in small communities (less than 10,000). For many of those years I worked for the Salvation Army covering over 20 counties raising funds, recruiting local welfare secretaries to help meet needs and running a camp for children in foster care. I worked with all types of churches and met wonderful people on the left and right of the political spectrum, but the only opposition I ever encountered was from churches or pastors from the left. And though there were some wonderful mainline churches that plugged into helping the poor, when the chips where down (a local disaster like a fire, flood or tornado) the conservative churches were always the first to respond.

    I also sat on many boards such as FEMA and United Way. Whenever we encountered a challenge the boards would always divide into two groups; the libs in the group who would complain about lack of funding and the conservatives who would talk solutions. Often these solutions would meet with resistance from our liberal friends.

    I appreciate your experience. I do know that if people in the burbs are challenged about poverty they do give. I also know that in rural areas typically all churches pull together with a small percentage of lib churches opting out or even opposing ideas.
  • coffeeguy50
    In my nearly 30 years of community revitalization work I have had the opportunity to work in communities both large and small, urban and suburban, rich and poor all across this country as well as several places around the world. My own personal experience is that those churches in poorer communities are BY FAR more aware and directly involved in meeting the needs of the poor in their communities as well as reaching out beyond their community boarders to where ever the poor or needed are found. They open up their facilities to feed and house the homeless, run after school programs for children in need and church members come out and are engaging their local governments in speaking up for the less fortunate.

    In more affluent communities, which are primarily suburban areas home to vastly more Evangelical Churches and a significant number of mega churches, there is more emphasis on more popular conservative issues (abortion, pro-family vs anti-gay politics, etc) rather than the issues of homelessness and poverty. There maybe giving once a year to a food bank or discussion of the poor in a missions week format, but when compared to the "way of life" of churches in poorer areas there is simply no comparison.

    Part of this is due to the "hidden" nature of the poor in more affluent suburban areas. Having served in local governments in such communities I can say from first hand experience there are often strong but subtle campaigns to move homeless people to areas less visible to the rest of the community. And less face it, people move to the suburbs to get away from the "negative influences" of the city, often couched in terms like high crime street people and pan handlers; the very poor the church is called to minister to.

    Finally I will say this; in all my years in community revitalization, I have never, and I mean NEVER been in an affluent community where any church ever came to speak up about the needs of the poor in those communities. Not ONE in these communities did churches critique efforts to suppress, isolate the poor or even relocate the poor to other communities through revitalizing poorer neighborhoods. Sadly in my early years of my career I say such efforts are perfectly acceptable. But as i have grown older (hitting 51 next month) and spent more time in the Word I have realized I am called to help the poor, not ignore them. I am proud to be practicing my craft in a poorer community where affordable housing, good jobs and creating quality environments for ALL citizens are priorities in our revitalization efforts.

    Hope this better explains my reason for what I said. Glad to know there are people on the blog who won't just let such statements go without asking for more information/documentation. Good for you and keep asking for proof!

    Randy
  • Nathan Bedford
    The Republicans lost the election for the presidency. they lost seats in the Senate and in the House. I get the impression from reading some of the comments that many of those who did not support Obama in the election have now joined with their rotund radio talk show host in hoping that Obama fails. If their foot-dragging translates into inaction on our current economic mess, then they may just have their prayers answered.
  • kevin47
    We haven't really seen how the economy responds, or whether new developments influence the economic cycle. In particular, social media has the power to reshape the way people utilize the Internet, which is going to create demand for new products and services.

    If the innovation fails to restore the economy, then we know we are in trouble.






    ________________________________
  • TedVothJr
    DO we have separation of Church and state? We have prayers at inaugurations and we have White House prayer breakfasts, and we have ministers marrying folks by authority vested in them by the state, and we have an Office of Faith-based initiatives.
    We NEED– the CHURCH needs!– separation from the state. Other wise we've got horse-manure mixed in with our ice cream.
  • squeaky
    Why don't you think we are in economic free fall?
  • judithod
    I would have felt much more "comforted" if Obama had spent less time on Air Force One, less time hosting parties, less time reading to schoolchildren, less time at Camp David and more time taking the lead on the stimulus plan. What happened to his campaign promise to review the federal budget line by line to remove excesses? That would seem to be an obvious step before borrowing and spending more, which we and our children and our children's children will be underwriting via increased taxes for years to come. And if he is an intelligent orator, he should be able to not only "sell" the stimulus plan but also to define it in understandable terms (e.g., Reagan defined his plan in 4 major sections). To date, Obama's oratory regarding the plan has primarily stressed how terrified we should be if the plan is not passed. All in all, Obama appears to be enraptured with the trappings of the presidency but not the work of the presidency.
blog comments powered by Disqus
click here for comments tech support
advertise here
  • MOST VIEWED
  • MOST COMMENTED
  • MOST RECENT
advertise here
advertise here
advertise here
advertise here


HOME | SUBSCRIBE | DONATE | TAKE ACTION | MAGAZINE  
SOJOMAIL | BLOGS | MEDIA | EVENTS | RESOURCES | ABOUT US  
Sojourners | 3333 14th Street NW, Suite 200 | Washington, DC 20010  
Phone 202.328.8842 | Fax 202.328.8757 | sojourners@sojo.net  
Unless otherwise noted, all material © Sojourners 2008