etcetera: April 2005 Archives

An open letter to the Calvin College Administration and Board of Directors regarding their decision to invite President Bush to speak at their Commencement:

To the Administration and Board of Directors at Calvin College:

Last week, Calvin announced that President George W. Bush would be the speaker at your upcoming Commencement ceremony in May. I'm extremely disappointed with this decision becasue I expect more from Calvin as a reformationally-minded institution.

Though I do not agree with many of President Bush's policies, my concerns are not politically motivated--at least not in the partisan sense that has run roughshod over our public relationships and conversations in the United States as of late. Rather, my primary objection is symbolic: a Christian institution should be extremely wary of associating itself with the symbolic representation of empire.

The Commencement speaker at any institution should encapsulate the identity of the institution in some significant way. Other events, such as guest lectures, do not represent the institution to nearly the same degree. Nicholas Wolterstorff, the speaker bumped by Mr. Bush, was a wonderful choice whose work is a clear example of an individual who has spent his life living and breathing reformational ideals. But the President of the United States, regardless of political affiliation or religious conviction, is an individual whose position carries heavy symbolic weight, particularly in the current political landscape.

The United States is the greatest empire the world has ever seen, though the economic nature of its domination is slightly different than previous political incarnations. A quick survey of the biblical narrative reveals the antogonistic relationship between God and empire, whether Egypt, Babylon or Rome. Though there are certainly socio-political implications--the agenda of empire runs contrary to God's intended order of shalom--God's primary opposition to empire is religious: the imperial cult attempts to usurp faithfulness to God. Indeed, in each of the cases listed above, the rulers of empire positioned themselves as gods, demanding total allegiance with a guarantee of death for treason. The United States finds itself in a similar role today, though the symbols of idolatry may be less obvious than large golden statues.

While the call to transformation is very important, we need to fully recognize and acknowledge ideologies competing for our attention before we can appropriately act. Loving God before anyone or anything else is far more difficult than we typically pay heed. No President in recent memory, with the possible (and problematic) exception of Jimmy Carter, has avoided succumbing to the ideology of U.S. empire and, as a result, none have acted transformationally according to scriptural norms. Indeed, it seems increasingly difficult to expect the President to be able to do so. He needs to swear allegiance to the United States--the empire--in order to do his Constitutionally dictated duties, including that of Commander-in-Chief. Therefore, his primary duty is to serve the nation-state's interests above all others, an inherently problematic proposition for the Christian.

In a ceremonious event in which Calvin is sending its graduates into the world, parting words from this symbolic individual are inappropriate. Calvin's vision of being agents of cultural renewal through learning is subverted when Jesus Christ is not recognized as Lord of all of life. Empire's demand for allegiance, symbolized in the position of President in U.S. empire, does not allow allegiance to the one true God. As they leave the Calvin community, graduates need to be encouraged by a living example of someone whose allegiance has not been compromised. Unfortunately, as stated earlier, the very nature of the Presidency makes this nearly impossible for the individual filling the position.

For these reasons, and many others I have not addressed for lack of time, I am informing you of my disappointment. I have no illusions that you will read this or change this year's Commencement activities; I simply wanted to share a biblically rooted opinion on the matter in the hopes that the Christian community would engage this issue more deeply.

Sincerely,

Robert Vander Giessen-Reitsma

If you'd like to discuss this response or the issue in general, visit the discussion in progress on catapult's discussion board.

In the past few years, many communities have been organizing community-wide reading programs that focus on one pertinent book for a period of time. Always a little behind the big cities but generally ahead of the small ones, our community recently engaged in its first such project using Alex Kotlowitz?s The Other Side of the River. Last night the library hosted a discussion with the author and two other panelists.

I was happy to see a decent turnout--around 80 people, I think--but left somewhat frustrated, even though I feel I learned a lot about how we should be moving toward racial healing in the United States and in our community. Out of the eighty people who attended, fewer than 10 were African American, although the representation was about proportionate to the total percentage of the local population. One of the comments from the discussion that sticks with me came from Liz O?Dell, the former head of the local NAACP. She looked around at the crowd and, holding up the book, said, ?Three Rivers, this is your story.? I suspected this, but being relatively new here and being white, I needed a person of color to verify that thought. The application I draw from this is that racial problems are bigger here than most of us know or acknowledge, especially if we?re white.

Then, Reverend JoAnn Mundy stepped up to the mic. She is an African American woman pastoring an all white congregation on the north (historically white) side of town. She made the point, which I believe, that minorities cannot advocate for themselves. They need whites to take the initiative. And the initiative can be as simple as walking across the street and asking someone to tell his or her story.

So here?s my frustration. As someone who?s taken the initiative as a citizen of a wealthy country to advocate on behalf of the world?s poor and as someone who?s trying to take responsibility for encouraging and reforming the Church, I?ve run out of vocational capital, so to speak. I have nothing left to spend, even though the leader in me has several (good) ideas about how to approach these problems in our community and is tempted to make them happen even in spite of a pending energy deficit. I know racial healing is important and I want to be a part of a solution, but is it selfish of me to say that I cannot take a leadership role on this one? Am I shirking my responsibility to say that I?m watching for new leaders in both the black and white communities to whom I can go with ideas and trust that, if the ideas are good, they?ll find a way to make them happen?

I do feel like this is my luxury as a white person, to say that I?ve chosen other issues as my focus because, as one of the panelists said, we white people often delude ourselves into thinking that we are raceless while, for blacks, race is central to identity and there is no freedom to choose racelessness. But also, in the back of my mind, is something a very wise friend of ours said: that to be able to say ?no? to things is predicated on knowing what I am made to do or, stated differently, knowing the purpose for which God created me.

My thoughts on these issues go in circles. My inclination is to watch and wait, but if we all watch and wait, who will act? Round and round I go?