Clarence Thomas Testifies

Watching Clarence Thomas’s interview on 60 Minutes (Thank God for YouTube) reminded me again how powerful and misleading testimony can be. There is nothing like hearing someone tell her or his own story, nothing like observing the construction and performance of a person's version of the truth.

Thomas constructed a mythic African American tale, complete with an absent father, a disempowered mother, an infallible grandmother, and, most important of all, a grandfather who dispensed tough love and the will to succeed. As reporter Kroft lobbed questions, much in the way of a defense attorney with his client, Justice Thomas spun a tapestry of adolescent Catholicism, 60s radicalism (loved the picture with the big Afro), early adult disillusionment (the fault of affirmative action), and mature strict-constructionist constitutionality. Despite some missteps along the way, he became a son his grandfather could be proud of, a success story. Horatio Alger lives.

The Clarence Thomas of the 60 Minutes interview is compelling and tragic, having overcome obstacles and defied racists only to end up misunderstood and mistreated, not just by white people but by his own. He has a 15-cent law degree from one of the finest law schools in the country and a not-sure-it’s-worth-it seat on the highest court of the land. That is powerful stuff.

But it is also misleading. If we are to believe his explanation, liberals and Black people dislike him because he thinks for himself and refuses to walk in lockstep. I can only speak for myself, but that’s not why I don’t like Clarence Thomas. I dislike anyone who espouses the kind of judicial conservatism whose colorblindness refuses remedy to people of color, after centuries of systemic racial oppression. I don’t like anyone whose rulings consistently interpret the law to affirm big corporations against little people. I dislike anyone whose judicial philosophy is to the right of Antonin Scalia. And I especially dislike people who benefited from affirmative action to the nth degree and then offer themselves as poster children for the ridiculous position that affirmative action actually hurts black folks. White or black, male or female, I would not like Clarence Thomas the Supreme Court Justice. I don’t proclaim to know the man.

Testimony, in court and in church, is judged on the basis of the speakers’ performance and on facts known by the audience. While Thomas’s 60 Minutes performance gets an A, the testimony of his rulings tells another story.

Suffer the Children

In an effort to explain his veto of the bill reauthorizing SCHIP (article), the State Children's Health Insurance Program, The Decider repeated his objection that the $35 billion expansion was both too costly and could potentially add children whose parents can afford private insurance to state rolls or, worse yet, that some adults might even be covered. In a statement so ironic that it would be comic if the stakes were not so high, The Decider intoned, "Poor kids first." But Bush's actual commitment, certainly more fervently held than his concern for the poor ,was expressed in his follow-up comment, "Secondly, I believe in private medicine, not the federal government running the health care system."

As a person of strong core beliefs and convictions, I can hardly object to the presence of such staunchness in another person, right? I have to respect and even admire that the President recognizes that the buck stops with him, whatever the polls say, right? Wrong!

I am weary of Bush's upside-down convictions. In his warped imagination, stem cell research using soon-to-be-discarded embryos is indefensible. Torture of suspects who have not yet been convicted of anything is a necessary evil. $190 billion for the war effort in 2008, funded God knows how for God knows how long, is advisable. $35 billion dollars over 5 years for children's health insurance, funded by additional cigarette taxation is too expensive.

When asked during the 2000 election presidential primary season what political philosopher he admired most, Bush cited Jesus Christ because "he changed my heart." I guess this is the same heart that believes in private medicine. It doesn't take much heart for a man who has always had access to health care to believe in the system that provides it for him. Real heart, as in the kind that produces compassion, induces a person to examine systems on the basis of who is left out. Perhaps Bush got confused by the King James Version's antiquated language and thought that when Jesus said "Suffer the little children" he meant "make the children suffer."

Whatever has caused this misguided presidential veto, I pray to the Jesus who loves all of the children that the Congress will override it.

Thomas and Hill Redux

By eerie coincidence Isiah Thomas and the Knicks were found guilty of sexually harassing Anucha Browne Sanders on the same day that Anita Hill published her response to Clarence Thomas's recently released memoir, titled My Grandfather's Son. In the memoir, Justice Thomas seeks simultaneously to vindicate himself and his image and to implicate the liberal establishment in what he claims were Hill's false accusations during his 1991 Supreme Court confirmation hearings.

In 1991, I was an undergraduate and already much too familiar with the tensions that can plague the relationships between professional Black women and men. I remember vividly the countless conversations in the dining halls of Harvard College that ensued after Anita Hill accused the nominee to the Supreme Court of sexual harassment. I am proud to say that I believed Hill from the beginning, although I admit that I disliked Thomas even before Hill surfaced. More interesting is the fact that most Black people I talked with, male and female, also believed Hill. What we argued about was whether it was ultimately helpful or damaging to the Race (meaning for African American progress) for Hill to have come forward.

I argued then that the Race is only degraded when we cover up Black men's misdeeds, especially when those crimes damage Black women. Black women are not responsible to imperil their physical, spiritual, or professional lives in order to preserve the fiction of a united Black community. And in fact, it is a form of internalized racism to have such a low opinion of Black manhood that we think Clarence Thomas and his ilk are the best we can do when we look for representatives of, in, and for our community.

In 2007, I am struck by how much has changed and how much remains unchanged. Recent events, including the civil trial of Isiah Thomas, the conviction of Michael Vick, and (another) indictment of O.J. Simpson demonstrate that the Black community still struggles with how to respond when famous Black men are accused of wrongdoing. But the ruling holding Isaiah Thomas liable for sexual harassment demonstrates that some things have changed. As Anita Hill herself put it: "Fortunately, we have made progress since 1991. Today, when employees complain of abuse in the workplace, investigators and judges are more likely to examine all the evidence and less likely to simply accept as true the word of those in power."

The Anita Hill who emerges in the New York Times Op-Ed piece is worthy of celebration. Whereas during the hearings she seemed muted and victimized, today her voice resounds like the clarion call of a trumpet. Unlike Thomas, she seeks no vindication, since as she notes, independent authors have already demonstrated that the claims Thomas seeks to resurrect were false. But she does offer a caution, that this unprecedented and obviously bitter outburst by a sitting Supreme Court Justice may portend legal regression if the nation drops its guard.

I (still) hear you, Professor Hill.

How Many Times Can Giuliani Say 9/11

Try as I may, I cannot keep from tuning in to what might be called the "Religious Dimensions of Presidential Politics, 2008 Edition." Perhaps it is because I bought the later discredited hype that attributed the reelection of George W. Bush in 2004 to the "values" campaign waged by Karl Rove and his anti-abortion, anti-gay political hacks. More likely, my interest is attributable to the ongoing concern I have as a scholar and minister for the representations of the faith that resonate with the majority of Americans who call themselves Christian.

Whatever the sources of my interest, I found myself biting when I read the headline "Giuliani Cites Bible on Personal Life." I wanted to know the limits of pandering in the Giuliani campaign. Would Hizzoner (Emeritus) actually manufacture a relationship with the Christian scriptures in order to bolster a would-be romance with the Christian conservative Republican base? The answer was both a more and less cynical appeal to the heart of his base than I anticipated.

In the first instance, I had to admit that perhaps Giuliani's resort to scripture was not entirely manufactured. Taking his testimony as a true confession, one discovers an adulterer who finds comfort in the refusal of Jesus to stone one such as himself. Although in some sense it is objectionable, this use of scripture is wholly conventional. Many a person living a ragged moral life has intoned, quoting Jesus, "Judge not." In the Black church tradition, this usually manifests as "The Lord knows my heart."

Given the fact that Giuliani has a difficult mountain to climb if he hopes to be the poster-candidate for the family values niche of the Republican base -- what with his public display of marital infidelity while in Gracie Mansion, his estranged children, and his support of abortion rights -- it may be prudent indeed to summons the Savior himself to silence his most judgmental followers. And if that doesn't work, he can tell the public again that his family and faith, though profoundly important in his life, are none of our business.

What was more disturbing than Giuliani's comments about the Bible was his use of "September 11th" as a mantra. In an unforgivably self-serving way, Giuliani constantly reminds his audiences that for him, and presumably for them, 9/11 changed everything. He's prayed a lot since 9/11, and he has to take his wife's calls in the middle of speeches because of 9/11. In effect, he wants America to know that he needs to be President because of 9/11.

What scares me most about this tactic, is that it may actually work. It may be the case that the value most critical to the Republican base in this election will be the strong arm. Pro-Jesus and pro-family may actually be less important than pro-war.

Take Me Home, Country Roads

The first item in my biographical sketch, used for church programs and speaking engagements, is that I grew up in Gary, West Virginia. More often than not, someone from within the congregation will approach me after the service with the special twinkle in their eye that comes not from a spiritual breakthrough catalyzed by my preaching, but rather from the shared heritage of being a Mountaineer. "I'm from West Virginia, too," they exclaim. After the exchange of specific information about cities and counties, there usually follows a conversation about the joys of being from West Virginia - almost heaven.

Given my origins in Southern West Virginia, I have been disturbed to the point of speechlessness by the accounts of seven captive days of rape and torture inflicted on 20-year-old Megan Williams. Images of this young Black woman forced to endure unspeakable abuse and indignities at the hands of six white people, among them a man and his mother, both sicken me and boggle my mind. I ask, along with the victim's mother and a nation aghast, how could human beings treat another person so cruelly. I cry out for justice, for the criminal acts to be punished and for the victim's personhood to be honored in the local courts, while all of America watches.

Unlike the rest of the nation, however, for me this case does not resurrect or reinforce preconceived notions about the fundamental backwardness of West Virginians. With all of its problems, most of them related to the collapse of industry and accompanying joblessness and poverty, West Virginia is home to some of the best, most generous people I have ever met.

Don't get me wrong, I am not naively pronouncing West Virginia free from the racism that plagues our nation, nor from the tensions that often attend interracial interactions. But I feel the need to say on behalf of all West Virginians, still resident or transplanted, that the West Virginia hills are home, the place were I learned from a community of people, black and white, what it means to be a good neighbor.

Too Much Enthusiasm? Not Again.

I might be accused of being hyper-sensitive about the subject, and the accusation might even be well-founded, but I am stunned by the recent article in Time magazine which asks the question "Are Mega-Preachers Scandal-Prone?" Now at first blush, if you judge an article by its title, you might wonder what about that assertion impacts me. I don't even have a church, much less a mega-ministry. And I have been known myself to question the integrity of several mega-preachers, generally in private but sometimes in public too.

What raises my ire about the article is the fact that it implies, with the ready assistance of Albert Mohler, President of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, that it is the Pentecostalism of these preachers that introduces the physical and emotional excess that leads to private misbehavior which eventuates in public exposure. Says Mohler, it is "so driven by emotion and by passion" that theological and moral accountability suffer. Thus, though discussing such figures as Swaggart, Bakker, White, and Bynum, who by virtue of their notoriety are hardly typical, the article manages to indict the whole Pentecostal/Charismatic movement.

Now any American religious historian, especially one who studies Pentecostalism as I do, will recognize immediately an argument as old as revivalism in this country. Whenever spiritual fervor has risen to the point where established denominations and authoritative persons cannot contain or control it, the charge of bodily excess and "enthusiasm" has always followed. The charismatic movement is no exception. Even within the history of Pentecostalism, theological debates and disagreements have often led to mudslinging accusations about the personal morality of the theological opponent. After Charles Parham's ouster from the Azusa Mission in 1907, he forever after accused Azusa-style Pentecostals of practicing "free love" and other acts of immorality, usually meaning illicit sex. His opponents, in turn, accused him of sodomy. None of this is new, but that doesn't make it accurate.

Let me expand on the point that Anthea Butler made in the same article, but that Time failed to emphasize, namely, that Pentecostals are no more scandal prone than other denominations. In fact, even the scandalous behavior noted in the article itself is commonplace, not only among Christian clergy but within society at large. Adultery and fiscal mismanagement, domestic violence, and divorce are not "mega-preacher things." The difference in these cases is that the preachers have a national following both before the allegations and after.

As a minister with Pentecostal heritage, but with a wide variety of experience and affiliation among Christian denominations, I am spending a lot of time lately trying to help non-Pentecostals have some accurate perspective on the Pentecostal movement. Time's reiteration of the worn-out thesis that too much emotional content makes religion dangerous and unaccountable does not help.

At the end of the day, being Pentecostal/Charismatic or anointed or in ministry, does not determine whether you will stay married, be faithful, or steal money. But being famous does mean that if you get caught, you'll have a scandal on top of everything else.

Show me the Money

When the public relations machinery that controls electoral politics in this nation invoked the phrase "compassionate conservative" and attached it to the vision and intentions of the man who would be President (now known as "The Decider"), I was skeptical. All of my life the Republican party, policy and platform, had represented race-baiting. poverty-ignoring, industry-coddling, war-mongering conservatism, completely without compassion. Conservatism of this sort moralized about personal responsibility, enriched the coffers the few who were already rich, and ignored governmental responsibility for promoting the general welfare. But where once I was skeptical, now I am downright angry.

The news this week is dominated by stories of appropriations. Defense Secretary Gates (on behalf of The Decider) is preparing his request for an estimated $190 billion for the war effort in Iraq and Afghanistan in 2008, one-third more than the original projections. At the same time, a bipartisan effort in Congress is haggling over a bill to extend health coverage to 10 million uninsured American children. The price tag? $35 billion over 5 years. And the haggling is primarily about making the bill sufficiently bipartisan so that enough Republicans will sign onto it and make it veto proof. Why does it need to be veto proof? Because our compassionate conservative Decider has an ideological opposition to federal government intervention in health care, even for the sake of millions of children.

Here's what I don't get. Our government can write a blank check and incur unprecedented debt to intervene uninvited and reorganize a nation halfway around the world in the name of democracy without offending his ideology, but a (cheaper) action to save the lives and promote the health of children at risk in our own nation goes beyond the pale of appropriate federal interference. Big government for war; small government for children. We can afford to remain in Iraq indefinitely, but we cannot insure the children who will ultimately have to pay the debt we are incurring.

In my posts thus far, I have been speaking to Christian-types, church people who I believe need to think more deeply about the issues of our day. And this blog is no exception. I don't hold out much hope for the current President. He is what he is, and does what he does. The challenge actually belongs to the church, the same people who initially felt that the compassion part of the "compassionate conservative" vision could lead to politics that conforms to a fundamentally (not fundamentalist) moral vision. The question for Christians is Have we finally reached the point where we can resist Bush's veneer of Christianity and condemn his policies?

When do we pay attention to the carpenter from Nazareth who observed 2000 years ago that where your treasure is there will your heart be also?