|
GWB VISITS
FBC - The First Faith-Based Programs Meeting
An Interview with Dr. Roger Paynter
Pastor of First
Baptist Church, Austin, Texas
-
Editor: Why and when did then Governor Bush choose
FBC for the meeting?
-
Q. Who chose the Youth Assembly Room for the meeting and
what preparations were made?
-
Q. When President elect Bush arrived, did you greet him?
-
Q. Who were some of the religious leaders present? Were
evangelicals represented?
-
Q. You also told me the President elect pulled you aside
to ask a private question---do you mind sharing that with our readers?
-
Q. What were your impressions of the religious leaders
present? Why were they chosen?
-
Q. What was the expressed purpose of the meeting?
-
Q. Was any opposition or discontent expressed by the
participants?
-
Q. One of those present was Marvin
Olasky, University of
Texas journalism professor, editor of
World magazine (an ultra-conservative religious journal), and self-acclaimed
religious counselor to George W. Bush. How did he come across?
-
Q. What do you think of the President’s “Faith-Based”
programs proposal?
-
Q. Did President Bush’s view of the media come through in
the meeting?
-
Q. Any final comments or observations you would like to
share with CET readers?
-
Editorial Postscript
The picture on the
front page of the Austin-American was eye-catching. President elect George W.
Bush in a metal folding chair, encircled by thirty dignitaries. Behind was a
multi-colored bulletin board emblazoned with pictures of youth groups, a cross
decorated with a fish symbol, posters advertising “Angels Over Austin,” and
names like Mary Kathryn, Jeff, and Jean. What were these national leaders doing
in the Youth Department of FBC, Austin?
Two days earlier
President-elect Bush invited these thirty ministers and religious leaders to
meet with him to discuss his plans to expand greatly the role of churches and
charities in federal welfare programs. The closed meeting at FBC Austin lasted
more than an hour. Bush reportedly asked the leaders how his administration
should proceed with “faith based” initiatives, a catch-phrase for providing
funds for churches and private charities to take over government welfare
functions and for using tax breaks and incentives to spur charitable donations.
In less than one
month after taking his oath, President Bush created a White House Office of
Faith Based Action, which would “encourage religious institutions to compete to
run drug, poverty, and other social
programs now administered by government agencies.” Many religious leaders
expressed concern, fearing the office will lead to government interference with
their ministries, favor politically-connected ministers, and will violate the
separation of church and state by providing government funds for what amounts
to proselytizing.
The day after the
meeting at FBC, Austin, the Editor had lunch with the pastor, Dr. Roger Paynter
and one of his members (and one of our favorite writers), attorney Hal
Haralson. The discussion was most interesting. As pastor of the church, Roger
was invited to attend the entire meeting, which was closed to the press. The
story of how this meeting came to be held at FBC, plus many behind-the-scene
details, make this interview interesting as well as vital for understanding
President Bush’s proposal.
Editor: Why and when did then Governor Bush choose
FBC for the meeting?
Paynter: There has never been a clear reason
given for their choice, other than the fact that he was in Austin during the
transition, we are a downtown church, he has been to First Baptist on one other
occasion, and we have long been involved in providing ministry to the downtown
area. Or, it could simply have been that First Methodist was booked!
Q. Who chose the Youth Assembly Room for the meeting and
what preparations were made?
A. Members of the Bush
“advance team” came to our building and chose that room because it was bright,
colorful, focused on youth and had more potential for a good “photo op.” Three
different people came at three different times during the 24 hours prior to the
meeting and met with out Minister to Students, Kevin Mitchell. Each person had
a different idea about how the room should be arranged, which included moving
furniture several times, painting the main wall, covering the wall with
different posters and pennants, etc. Kevin worked with the Bush team until
11:00 p.m. on Tuesday evening only to have them come on Wednesday morning,
change their minds and rearrange the room one more time. Several times Kevin
had to remind them that this room belonged to our youth group, that our youth
had picked out the color schemes and decorations and that it could not be
severely altered for photo opportunities.
Q. When President elect Bush arrived, did you greet him?
A. The Secret Service came and got me from my office
exactly six minutes before Mr. Bush arrived and briefed me on what to say. The
remainder of our staff was sequestered in the office under the supervision of
the Secret Service. When the motorcade pulled up to the front door, I walked
out and said, “Mr. President-elect, my name is Roger Paynter and I want to
welcome you to First Baptist Church.” Before I could finish, Bush replied,
“Yes, I know who you are. We met last year at the Martin Luther King service at
Central Presbyterian. You had to read that difficult passage of scripture about
the genealogy of Jesus and I told you then that I was impressed that you got
through all those names without stumbling.” That was impressive and caught my
attention. I then asked him if he was ready to go upstairs for the meeting and
he said, “In a minute. It looks like the Secret Service has your staff held
hostage. Let’s go liberate them.” And he proceeded to cross our atrium into the
office where he talked with every member of our staff, shaking hands and
signing a few autographs. He was personable and engaging and in that moment I
think the members of my staff who voted for Al Gore would have changed their
vote!
Q. Who were some of the religious leaders present? Were
evangelicals represented?
A. Bishop Fiorenza, President of the U.S. Catholic
Bishops was present as was the President of the American Jewish Congress, Jim
Wallis of Sojourners, Tony Evans of Promise Keepers, Ron Sider of Evangelicals
for Social Action, Rep. Floyd Flake who is a congressman from the Bronx as well
as an A.M.E. pastor, Rev. Cheryl Sanders, A.M.E. pastor from Washington, D.C.,
Eugene Rivers, head of a project in Boston, and Rev. Kirbyjohn Caldwell of
Windsor Park United Methodist Church in Houston. An Imam from Detroit was also
there. In addition, Marvin Olasky, editor of World magazine and the
author of Compassionate Conservatism and the Honorable Stephen Goldberg,
(I think that is his name) former Mayor of Indianapolis.
Q. You also told me the President elect pulled you aside
to ask a private question---do you mind sharing that with our readers?
A. Not at all. At the close of the meeting which
lasted almost 90 minutes, everyone had an opportunity to shake Mr. Bush’s hand
and make personal comments to him. After everyone had done so, there was a
moment when everyone had stepped back to give him room and allow the Secret
Service to step forward. For several minutes Mr. Bush was standing alone and I
was standing near his side. He turned to me during this time and said, “Roger,
I really want my administration to be strongly influenced by my faith. Tell me
how I can do that.” You can imagine that I was stunned. What I said was, “Mr.
President-elect, the book of James says that faith without works is dead, which
means that if you want your faith to be taken seriously in the White House,
then you need to find tangible ways to express your convictions. Historically,
the most credible way to do this is to care for those in our society who are on
the margins—the poor, those who experience all kinds of discrimination, and
those who need a word and sign of hope. If you will be a President that gets
out of the White House and goes to these people and listens to them, then those
who are cynical will have to take you seriously. Secondly, because there will
be forces both within and outside of the White House who will be opposed to you
expressing your faith, you need to surround yourself with a balanced group of
people who will regularly pray with you and speak the truth in love.” He paused
and said, “That makes a lot of sense.”
Q. What were your impressions of the religious leaders
present? Why were they chosen?
A. First, not all of them had voted for Bush and he
quickly acknowledged this. He started the meeting by sharing his journey of
faith and asking us to give him guidance on what he could say about his faith
in his Inaugural Address and any suggestions we might have about the possibility
of a Faith-based office in the White House. That opened up a flood of
conversation and opinion, with the Catholic Bishop reminding him that the
Catholic Church had been doing faith-based ministry for a long time and that
Catholic Charities was the number two provider of social services behind the
Federal Government. Several of the African-American pastors talked about strong
ministries they have in urban areas such as Boston, Pittsburgh, Houston, and
Detroit. In addition, several of the African-American pastors made statements
to indicate that they were not followers of Jesse Jackson and they were more
concerned about reaching their communities than taking on every political
issue.
The Rabbi
(President of the American Jewish Congress) and I were the only two people to
mention the danger that a Faith-Based office held for the historic separation
between Church and State. Mr. Bush dismissed our concern, simply saying, “Don’t
worry. Nothing will happen to harm that separation.” His response in that moment
was flippant and naïve. Joining him in dismissing that concern was Jim Wallis
of Sojourners and Ron Sider, both involved in the Call to Renewal movement.
Wallis told me in private that his primary concern was for the poor and he did
not have time to waste on some theoretical constitutional principle when people
were hungry. Sider told me he thought the Baptist Joint Committee had become an
extremist group over this issue.
Q. What was the expressed purpose of the meeting?
A. The expressed purpose was for this group to be a
sounding board concerning the possibility of establishing a Faith-Based office
in the White House. However, it became obvious that this decision had already
been made and that Bush was wanting help with gaining an appropriate “faith-language”
to use in his public declarations and that this was a media event that gave the
impression that the faith community at large was supportive of this idea.
Q. Was any opposition or discontent expressed by the
participants?
A. I mentioned the concerns raised about church-state
separation. The only other discontent raised came from the Rev. Cheryl Sanders,
an A.M.E. pastor in Washington, D.C. Rev. Sanders pointed out to Mr. Bush that
her congregation was located in a ghetto just 6 blocks away from the White
House and yet a million miles away from hope. She pointed out that their church
had gone to great lengths to educate their youth about sexual abstinence,
worked very hard to see that 98% of their kids graduated from high school,
taught their young fathers about family responsibility, and provided enormous
numbers of adult males to patrol the hallways of the schools to help stop
violence. She had embraced all of the conservative values Mr. Bush espoused.
Yet, when these kids graduated they still could not get jobs or get out of the
ghetto because they live in a society that still suffers enormously from racial
prejudice and racial injustice. What could he do about that, she wanted to
know.
Mr. Bush made, at
that moment, a very cryptic remark to Rev. Sanders to the effect that he did
not know what she was talking about when she spoke of injustice and he didn’t
know how he could help her. Later, to his credit, he apologized, saying that
his comment had been curt and rude and that he needed her help in understanding
the problem. He went on to say that he had grown up in a privileged setting,
that he had never wanted to be President when he was growing up, only the
Baseball Commissioner, and that he needed a lot of help in understanding issues
of injustice. It was an honest, even vulnerable answer and yet, the truth of
his answer was chilling. Indeed, he is a person of great privilege, he has not
experienced injustice and even more, has made very little effort to expose
himself to the realities of injustice. That admission on his part was why I
gave him the advice I did when I had the opportunity.
His bias against
government programs was very clear, combined with his fascination with what
several urban congregations were doing for the poor. Indeed, his still young,
evangelical faith is driving him to think that the answers to our social
concerns are much simpler than can be implemented. I think he is trying very
hard to act on his faith and to develop a social conscience, but his
anti-government bias and his rather naïve perspective on church “solutions” is
leading him to some simplistic answers.
Q. One of those present was Marvin
Olasky, University of
Texas journalism professor, editor of
World magazine (an ultra-conservative religious journal), and self-acclaimed
religious counselor to George W. Bush. How did he come across?
A. I read Olasky’s
column in the Austin paper so I was prepared to hear a lot from him in the
meeting. However, he sat on the edge of the room and said little until the end
when he declared that World had the fourth largest newsmagazine
circulation behind Time, Newsweek, and U.S. News and World
Report. Of course, he did not say how FAR behind the Big Three they were in
circulation, but he implied that he had lots of readers. He used that declaration
to pledge to Mr. Bush that his magazine could be counted on to “get the Bush
message out” in an uncritical fashion. That one statement, in which he
sacrificed all journalistic integrity, told me all I needed to know about Mr.
Olasky. He is the founder of the Redeemer Presbyterian Church in Austin, a tiny
5-point Calvinistic congregation near the University of Texas campus. Olasky is
a former self-proclaimed communist and atheist who converted to Orthodox
Judaism a few years back only to then convert to fundamentalist Christianity
and begin the magazine and church while teaching journalism at UT. In my other
encounters with him in Austin I have found him to be argumentative, aggressive,
and a historical revisionist, constantly quoting “facts” about the Founding
Fathers to support his ultra-conservative positions.
The Sunday following the meeting at FBC, Mr. Olasky was on CNN
in a dialogue with Welton Gaddy. Welton did a superb job of countering every
point of Olasky, finally getting him to admit that he had close ties to Pat
Robertson. This is not surprising, but it had never been indicated in any of
Mr. Olasky’s columns in the Austin paper.
Q. What do you think of the President’s “Faith-Based”
programs proposal?
A. According to the Saturday, March 3, New York
Times, the administration may well be in trouble. Not only is Mr. Bush
experiencing criticism from those who want to protect the “wall of separation,”
but now his proposal is being criticized by Pat Robertson because it allows
“non-Western” religions such as Hare Krishna and newer religious movements like
the Church of Scientology and Unification Church to get in line for money.
Surprise! Did they NEVER consider this possibility? This is not unlike what
James Dunn has always said about prayer in schools—whose prayers? Is their
world-view so parochial that when the word “faith-based” is used they think it
only means evangelical Christians? On the other hand, Olasky has now come to
the awareness that if the government provides funds they just might begin to
tell churches HOW they can do their business and whether they can be
evangelistic.
My guess is that
eventually the office will be closed but Bush will be able to say to the
Religious Right that he kept a campaign promise. That is probably “wishful thinking”
on my part, but you asked!
Q. Did President Bush’s view of the media come through in
the meeting?
A. The media was not allowed into our meeting except
for less than 3 minutes at the end of our time (despite all that we did to make
our youth room look good for photographs!). Before the media was brought in, he
apologized to us that he even had to talk to the media and then said to us,
“Now watch how I handle these guys.” He then proceeded to make a series of
“sound-bite” statements about faith-based initiatives and social programs and
the need for America to recapture religious values. Each statement was a “stand
alone” statement and no sentence followed another in any kind of logical
progression. The media was not permitted to ask questions, only to take
pictures and turn on the microphone and then they were ushered back out of the
building. In fact, the President did not leave the building until all of the
media had dispersed. I don’t suppose his attitude was anymore cynical towards
the media than any other politician, but it was clear in his tone of voice and
facial expression that he viewed them with suspicion.
Q. Any final comments or observations you would like to
share with CET readers?
A. While it was very interesting to be part of this
meeting, it was a surreal experience at best. I was amazed at the amount of
preparation that went into this 90 minute meeting. The Secret Service built two
security towers on adjacent buildings for this one meeting. At what cost to the
taxpayer? The “advance team” spent all of one day re-doing our youth Sunday
School room three times. The local media interviewed me four times for over an
hour and used 30 seconds at the most with none of what I said about
church-state separation. The President moved back and forth at times between
listening in earnest on the one hand and then making somewhat derisive remarks
at other times. At least three times he apologized for being “sarcastic.” He is
personable, likeable, and at times, a bit petulant. He reminded me of friends in
college who had great social skills and were well-liked but who came to your
dorm room the night before a test begging for the class notes because they had
never bothered to study. And, because of their charm, you always gave them the
notes! I think he was telling us the truth when he said that he never wanted to
be the President, only the Commissioner of Baseball.
When Republican
friends asked me about the meeting, they wanted me to tell them how wonderful
Mr. Bush is and when Democratic friends asked me, they wanted me to tell them
that Mr. Bush was dumb and mean. He is much more complex than either of those
caricatures. He is charming. He is not dumb. He has a good sense of humor. He
is quick to rely on other people’s expertise and admit his own shortcomings. At
other times he is more confident than he should be about some issues. One thing
is very clear. He IS savvy about people, he is intelligent, and he is quite the
politician.
One final
vignette. After the frustration of working with the Bush advance team for a
day, our student minister, Kevin Mitchell, was then bitten by the Secret
Service “bomb” dog! They had brought a German Shepherd into our building to
sniff out possible bombs. The handler was distracted momentarily and the dog
clamped his mouth on Kevin’s leg, tearing his slacks and drawing blood.
Fortunately there was an EMS unit that travels with the President and they
attended to Kevin’s bite. However, he had to get a tetanus shot the next day,
plus purchase a new pair of slacks. At this writing, the Secret Service has yet
to pay for any of this, though they gave Kevin their address. Our custodian,
Robert Moore, philosophically mused, “Well, Kevin, look at it this way—at least
you were bitten by the President’s dog!”
There is a sense
in which I feel as if we had been bitten by the President’s pet, the
“faith-based” initiative meeting. It was our privilege to host the President of
the United States and numerous national religious leaders. However, as
Baptists, we can not endorse any idea that would damage the Wall of Separation
or allow our conscience to be purchased with government funds or have any
government directives as to how we should conduct our ministry. No matter the
President’s charm, no matter the honor of it all, this is an idea that will
bite both the church and the state.
Editorial Postscript: The
Christian Century (September, 2000) carried an interesting article on
Marvin Olasky’s “compassionate conservatism” and President Bush’s faith-based
remedies. The writer notes that most of the nation’s poor are the working poor,
whose poverty can be largely attributed to social inequities, and who elude
“compassionate conservatism,” which some say is a program for transforming the
“underclass” into the working poor. The real claim the working poor have upon
the rest of us is a claim less to compassion than to distributive justice, a
claim which compassionate conservatives have trouble understanding.
Faith-based
programs are plagued with problems, not the least of which is how a “faith”-based
program can be administered without the religious values of that “faith.” In
addition, what faiths are out of bounds? Philip Jenkins, professor of history
and religious studies at Penn State and author of a new book on cults and new
religions in American society states: “Either you fund all faith groups, even
groups you radically don’t like, or you fund none. . . . How do you distinguish
between a Methodist and a Moonie? The answer is, you can’t.”
Rep. John Lewis of Georgia
concludes, “I don’t want to see religious groups out trying to convert or
proselytize with federal dollars.” Nor do I.--JET
Updated Monday, April 09, 2001
|
