Some Black Pastors See New Aid Under Bush

greenspun.com : LUSENET : A.M.E. Today Discussion : One Thread

Bishop Blake, Pastor of the West Angeles Church of God in Christ [18,000 member strong] and leader of a group of African American ministers "are seeking friendlier relations with the Republican Party." The Bishop is the leader of a new powerful group of black ministers who disavow the leadership of the Congressional Black Caucus and civil rights figures like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. In a position paper they wrote, "It is important not to inflame the debate over cabinet nominees over facile charges of racism." Rev. Eugene Rivers, associate of Bishop Blake, said of John J. Dilulio Jr. whom President Bush named to head the Faith-Based Office, "He and I are joined at the hip . . .". See the New Yourk Times Article of the same title, today Feb. 2, 2001. By the way, Rev. Floyd Flake chose not to sign the position paper of this new group. I agree wholeheartedly with Bishop Blake and his group. In fact I am planning to join as soon as possible. Where are you on this? Pastor Paris

-- Anonymous, February 02, 2001

Answers

I see this as an opportunity for the government to poke its nose in the business operations of the AMEC. This faith based office SOUNDS good. But I think that it is unrealistic due to the seperation of church and state. A group of ministers who disavow the leadership of Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, well now that is interesting. I am neither a fan of Jesse or Al, but the debate of overt racism and fundamentalism of Ashcroft is real. For example, Ashcroft says that he is a man of principle. However, he will abandon his principles when administering the laws of the land. Even when those laws disagree with his person beliefs. How can a person have integrity and go against his personal beliefs? I'd hate to be his shoes, having to enforce a "lie". Wonder how he will sleep at night? If Afrikan Americans choose the materialistic view of this administration, so be it. Some of us see through the illusion. The so-called spirituality of this administration is secondary to profits. The US is stinking back into the dark ages. A time when the only people with intelligence were the so-called church leaders and government.

-- Anonymous, February 02, 2001

AMEN Sister Brenda! You are right on target. Some of us will not be tricked by deceptive tactics, which cover up or cloud the real issues at hand. Fifty percent of us have yet not been told how we could have been legally disenfranchised in the recent election. However, a larger question is how some of the Sons and Daughters of Richard Allen could seemingly be so unaware of the real issues at hand, and lend support to deceptive ideas. A case in point: In January of 1817 Richard Allen, Absalom Jones, and John Forten called a Convention of African Americans to Mother Bethel in order to address the major issues confronting African Americans of that era. History records that 3,000 black men filled the church (The original forerunner of such ideas as the Million Men's March or the March on Washington). The first issue was the idea of Women's Suffrage, which these men wholeheartedly supported but which the government still did not allow. The second was the idea of colonization and repatriation of African Americans on the continent of African. This idea was a major agenda item of the President then taking office--namely, President James Monroe--who used government funds to effect such an idea. Monrovia in the Colony of Liberty (Liberia) still bears his name. These 3000 Sons of Allen, however, would not be deceived; and history recorded that they voted unanimously against the idea of African Colonization because they perceived it simply as a device of southerners to rid the country of it's strongest force for the Abolition of Slavery--namely, the Free Black Man. The A.M.E. Church has always been a stromg force for the freedom, equality, dignity, and justice of all men and woman. We don't need the government telling us how to run our church. How then are we thus deceived?

-- Anonymous, February 03, 2001

Brother Paris, I am indeed interested in the presidents faith based plan, and I hope for the best for all people of color. But I am a member of the AME church and thus am bound by the directives of my Bishop. I think it important that we remember that our decisions are connectional decisions. Which means we need to be in dialogue with our Bishops. I am in the fifth district and will wait and see what Bishop John Bryant says to clergy and laity in the fifth district regarding this faith based initiative. You mentioned Bishop Blake of the Church of God in Christ, as a Bishop it is appropiate for him as a Bishop to take such a stance, he then will convey his wishes to clergy and local churches. We must be patient and allow our Bishops to have time to examine this initiative and then present their findingss to the AME church as a whole. By the way when I was United Methodist our church wanted to offer sancutary to latin americans fleeing persecution in Central America, we were well intended. Our Bishop said no! Thank God he did, for he had investigated the situation and because of his authority he was able to reach people our local church could not, those who were requesting sanctuary were actually soldiers who were killing the people. Our Bishop protected our church from harm. So let us pray and wait for God, and let our Bishops look into this on behalf of the AME church. We as local pastors must follow precedures regarding involving our local churches in political matters. Take care my brother.

-- Anonymous, February 03, 2001

Bishops to issue postion paper
On President Bush's Faith-Based Funding

I can not tell you yet what the group consensus will be, but I have posed the question of the A.M.E. Church's position on Faith-Based program funding to the Council of Bishops.

The Council of Bishops will be present in Memphis, TN this week in connection with the Executive Meeting of the WMS. I was told they would discuss this issue at that time and then come to consensus to draft a position paper.

I was promised I would receive a draft of this paper as soon as it is authored and I in turn promise to post it online as soon as I receive it, both as a news item on the top half of the web site and also here, in a new discussion topic, since it already has become a major top of discussion.

I know this is not the answer to the question, but it is a path leading to the answer.

-- Anonymous, February 03, 2001


I hope that was not a warning for me. I refuse to believe that our bishops would use the political position of a pastor against that pastor. Blessings Pastor Paris

-- Anonymous, February 03, 2001


Bro. John & Sister Denise: I think the General Conference has spoken its mind already. I refer you to The Book of Discipline, page 265, question 26: "What are the number of community projects within the church receiving funds from outside the church? (Child care, Senior citizens homes, etc.)" Key words here are "inside the church" and "funds from outside the church". It seems to me that we are expected to do this rather than forbidden. Am I reading this wrong? Blessings Pastor Paris

-- Anonymous, February 03, 2001

Pastor Paris, although I can not predict what the Bishops will decide, I can see there is some cautious concern about this new initiative.

I think the well spring of concern comes from not knowing totally how this will affect the church-state relationship as it now stands and whether it could potentially silence any of the church's prophetic voice.

I am sure some of these questions will be clarified when President Bush's team starts giving legal shape to what now, on the surface at least, appears to be a great concept.

I do not disagree that the discipline urges outside funding, but I would have to stop short of agreeing that it implies this particular type of federal funding. The short and easy because this type of funding was not in effect when the Discipline was written, the more esotoric being it more has referenced in the past the many non-restrictive grants available for churches.

I am prayerful that President Bush's plan comes without any hidden agendas and as I stated time will tell, but I do not think that section of the discipline strictly covers this particular issue...and obviously, since the Bishops have decided it merits some discussion, neither do they at this juncture.

Incidentally, since this has bred on-going discussion, I am placing all of the current White House press releases, speeches, etc. on the Faith based program in Cross Talk so all can be as fully versed, as is possible at this point, to the particulars of President Bush's plan as they stand thus far. To let people know what President Bush is indeed saying and not saying. That way the conversation will continue more on a factual track rather down the road of speculation and persumption. It can be found at http://www.ame-today.com/crosstalk/faithbased.shtml

I hope this will help to enhance the already high-quality of this discussion.

-- Anonymous, February 03, 2001


Brother Paris, my statement was not a warning to you. I am new to the AME denomination so my experiences are based on being a pastor in the United Methodist denomination. We as pastors are certainly entitled to our political views and convictions. But when we involve the local church in our personal political practices. Caution should be used. Of course this is only my opinion, Methodism has a wonderful checks and balance in place. If I wanted to take part in a faith based government program as a pastor, I would write a proposal and send it to my Presiding Elder and Bishop for their approval. Again I am learning the precedures for the AME church. By the way the story I shared earlier I was not the pastor of the church. But all of us learned a valuable lesson. So again I apologize if you felt I was warning you not to pursue your dreams. One last thing, I honestly do not think Congress is going give money to maintain this faith base initiative. But at least we are talking about some exciting programs.

-- Anonymous, February 04, 2001

The Republicans believe in less government intervention, but it seems to me that this type of program would simply provide more government intervention. Faith based programs have been going on in the Church for decades without the help of government funds, but through the power of prayer.

Pastor Paris, you stated that had Bill Clinton been for this then we would be all over it. Well, the Welfare Reform bill signed by President Clinton opened the door for faith based initiatives. Under Section 104 of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 a faith based organization can receive funding just like any other group. The question is why do we need it. We as Christians have support groups and self-help groups going on all day long in our Churches which are being funded by our Churches. Have you ever tried to get federal funding through the provisions of Section 104? If not, then why now that your "homeboy" is President and has suggested the same thing is it such a wonderful idea. If it's good for us then it's good for us, no matter who thought of the idea.

-- Anonymous, February 05, 2001


Why do we need it? We don't need it. The drug abusers need a Faith Based program to kick the habit. The children that do not read up to speed need it; The kids that don't have a hot lunch during the summer need it; the minimum wage working mother who can't earn enough for child care need it; the kid that is about to go wrrong because he has no father at home need it. This program is not designed to help the church, it is designed to allow the church to help without government interference, less government. The program is to REDUCE the government controls so that churches and other faith-based organization will VOLUNTEER to use. No organization has to use this program. Only those that want to volunteer will use it. Blessings Pastor Paris

-- Anonymous, February 05, 2001


Pastor Paris, I might sound like a nay sayer...but this program is trouble to churches. I suggest that you READ the program guidelines before buying into the concept. I think that many pastors will get into trouble by mismanagement. Maybe not you, but some will spend the money doing other things. These services that you speak about can be provided by organizations already in existance and doing a great job. If the churches feel the need to volunteer and help...help them. Donate to them. I think that it is a red herring.

In Love and Light, Brenda

-- Anonymous, February 05, 2001


I must agree with sis Brenda in this. I would be wise to read carefully, very carefully the particulars of this plan. Federal funds usually come with a lot of strings, and I cannot at this time imagine how those strings can be removed by this plan. So I will withold judgement until I read fully the Request for Funds documents and see what restrictions they attempt to put on the church.

-- Anonymous, February 07, 2001

The nice thing about this is that you don't HAVE to participate. If you don't like it or it is not for you,by all means refrain from participating. But that does not make the program bad--it just does not suit your needs, but as for me and my church, we will. . . Blessings Pastor Paris

-- Anonymous, February 07, 2001

Moderation questions? read the FAQ