Christian Ethics Today

GWB VISITS FBC: The First Faith-Based Programs Meeting An Interview with Dr Roger Paynter

CET

GWB VISITS FBC – The First Faith-Based Programs Meeting
An Interview with Dr. Roger Paynter
Pastor of First Baptist Church, Austin, Texas

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

Share on Facebook
Tweet
Follow us
Exit mobile version