Debate over the separation of church and state “was never a thing” for the Black church, insisted Rev. Eugene F. Rivers III, addressing a crowd gathered at the American Enterprise Institute on October 10. “The church/state debate has always been an elite debate.”
The reverend’s statement was an intentionally incendiary challenge to feature in his opening remarks at an event otherwise dedicated to the very debate which Rivers dismissed: the relationship between church and state, and its policy implications for K-12 education. Rivers continued:
“I’m going to say that again for some of y’all – I’m not sure if you’ve had your coffee yet. That’s an elite debate that made no difference to the people who made a difference and transformed the world. Elites need something to talk about, right, so we’ll talk about church/state stuff while the poor – independently of the state and others – the poor organized, drawing on the spiritual and moral resources that have shaped their lives and provided the actual inspiration for the United States and for us to have this, if this is the beginning of a new conversation we must have, and a new and more creative historiographic frame for how we engage.”
Rivers is pastor of Azusa Christian Community in Dorchester, MA, one of the world’s oldest Pentecostal congregations. Previously, he advised the Bush and Clinton administrations on faith-based policy initiatives. Now in his 70’s, Rivers, together with his wife Jacqueline, has founded Seymour Institute for Black Church and Policy Issues. The couple is currently touring the country, offering lectures on the vital connection between black church leaders and the education reform movement. This fall, one stop along their tour was AEI’s forum, “Church and State: Reimagining Faith Communities’ Role in K-12 Education.”
Although the Reverend’s own Seymour Institute co-hosted the event along with AEI’s FREE Initiative for the study of education and faith communities led by Ian V. Rowe, AEI Senior Fellow and author of Agency: The Four Point Plan for ALL Children to Overcome the Victimhood Narrative and Discover their Pathway to Power, Rev. Rivers sought to unsettle the crowd of policy wonks and educational administrators in attendance. And it worked.
Honed in the pulpit, Rev. Rivers’ oratory approach contrasted with that of seasoned speakers on public policy in substance, but especially in style. Long after he sat down, Rivers continued to pepper panelists with a one-man chorus of “Amen!” or “Tell ‘em, Doc!” when he approved, and vigorous head-shaking when he didn’t. While Rivers still had the stage he worked it hard, complimenting the audience at one moment only to criticize in the next.
“This is a very fancy crowd with important people, amen, right,” crowed Rivers. “As you can see, I wore one of my best COGIC [Church of God in Christ] suits to liven it up because I knew there would be a lot of grays and blues.” The reverend’s ensemble consisted of a cobalt pinstripe suit with a yellow tie, yellow floral pocket square, and amber rhinestone cuff links. Smoothing his lapel, Rivers introduced the rise of Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. as a key example of elite ignorance to effectual social trends. Rivers claimed to have flipped through a copy of National Review in 1952, only to be disappointed when William F. Buckley Jr. drew a blank on predicting the ultimate significance of black civil leaders such as MLK. I imagined Rivers reading NR wearing that same suit.
“All the geniuses like the people assembled here who sit high, look low, and know everything right – no, I’m joking, I’m joking, I’m joking, you’re all very humble people, I’m joking right – had you asked them what is going to be the most significant national movement that’ll have international repercussions, no one would have come up with the idea that a young kid preacher in, of all places, Montgomery Alabama would be the center point for an entire movement that captivated the imagination of all of the political leadership.”
Rivers’ call-to-action was clear: to recognize the importance of black community faith leaders and engage them in the school choice movement today. Rivers quoted William Faulkner, whom he identified as both a “hardcore segregationist” and a “brilliant novelist,” with the insight to realize: “The past is never dead. It’s not even past.”
If the past is present, how far into the future is November 5, 2024? Looking ahead, Rivers predicted, “No matter how the election turns out, the only game left is going to be the black church.” His final message? Don’t forget the millions of black Pentecostal charismatic Christians who remain under the political radar, or the potential of their community leaders.
According to Pew Research Center, black Americans will account for 14% of eligible voters in 2024. To be determined is what percentage of those eligible will cast their ballots come November. Historically, black voters have been stalwart Democrats but recent research shows that young black voters are leaning more conservative than their parents. One key question for the upcoming election is how each party will approach the regulation of K-12 education. Having better options for schools is an issue of increasing importance for black voters, as explained in The Wall Street Journal’s August op-ed, “Black Voters Demand School Choice” and October’s “School Choice is the Civil-Rights Issue of Our Time” penned by Pastor Joshua C. Robertson of The Rock Church of Harrisburg, PA and Black Pastors United for Education, who spoke on the second panel at AEI.
Situated at the crossroads of so many fundamental debates, school choice — which includes advocating for better options for private as well as public school students — is likely the defining bipartisan issue of our otherwise polarized time. But inextricable from the conversation about how we regulate schools is how we understand the separation of church and state.
While Rev. Rivers was right that local communities must often make practical decisions based on limited resources and can’t afford to wait for the resolution of philosophical church and state debates, the very fact that these debates have gone on so long proves that their substance is relevant to what Rivers terms “planet Earth where most people live.” Panelists and conference attendees crossed this bridge between theory and practice several times throughout the AEI forum.
In one instance, an audience member named Mr. Hess, who attended Boston Public Schools in the 1950s, recalled being compelled to recite the Lord’s prayer daily. “Years later I found out that the Lord’s Prayer is an important Christian prayer and as a Jewish kid – and half our class was Jewish – I was angry and I’m still not happy about it. Where’s the red line between the faith communities and the public schools?”
Panelists were divided. Irvin Leon Scott, Senior Lecturer on Education at Harvard University and former deputy director of K-12 education at the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation was quick to assert that a red line is necessary to ensure that every student feels “affirmed.” Scott’s prior comments relayed that a recurring dilemma in his own career has been that of staying true to Christian beliefs while remaining present and effective in secular public spaces. He described his approach to this difficulty: “Wise as a serpent, harmless as a dove.”
“You can’t have your cake and eat it too,” countered Pennsylvania Pastor Robertson, challenging the viability of making everyone feel affirmed. “You can’t say you don’t want the Lord’s Prayer but then require my daughter to be in a bathroom with a child who was born a man.”
Another skirmish arose within the second panel titled, “Advocacy in the Public Square,” this time between Harvard’s Mr. Leon & Mrs. Jacqueline C. Rivers. In her introductory remarks, Mrs. Rivers had entreated school choice advocates to remember the plight of public school students and oppose inaccurate curricula failing to teach both the good and the evil present in US history, especially regarding the history of slavery. Oh, and, also to oppose the LGBTQ agenda, which she termed a “demonic lie.” Rev. Rivers echoed his wife with a vociferous “Amen!”
Later in the panel, Mr. Leon picked up the thread of the demonic lie and tugged. He cautioned against using such language in public schools and underlined the importance of making sure all students feel safe and respected, especially those who may already be at greater risk of bullying. Mr. Leon had forewarned Mrs. Rivers that he would raise the issue, and she thanked him for the qualification, conceding that her point had not been clear in the “passion of the moment.”
Overall, most panelists agreed that, although public schools need support, they should not be understood as neutral entities. This perspective was most clearly articulated by AEI Senior Fellow Robert Pondisco during the first panel, “Managing Institutions Bridging Faith and Education.”
“There’s a tacit assumption that needs to be challenged, that traditional public school is a default against which all alternatives need to be measured,” said Mr. Pondisco. “Everything that happens in any school, public, private, religious, secular is a manifestation of someone’s values.”
If we accept Pondisco’s analysis that all institutions project their own values and suppositions about religion and society, then there’s a whole minefield of church/state debates awaiting in each manifest form of the school. Amid myriad choices, what’s a school reformer, policy maker, or parent to do? For many in the school choice movement, whose patron saint is Milton Friedman, the solution appears obvious: the more choices the better.
You can brainwash your kids at your school, I’ll inform and educate my kids at mine. The schools will compete in the marketplace of ideas and tax dollars — God’s speed (if you’re into that) — and may the best school win.
At the forum, one voice in particular urged education reformers and faith leaders to put aside their differences and unite behind the cause of delivering high quality classical education to children and parents. Dr. Toyin Atolagbe, Executive Director of Great Hearts Christos in Arizona drew a straight line between attentiveness in the classroom and in the pews, putting the onus on the religious leaders to partner with educators.
“Faith-based leaders, I am challenging you. It’s time to rise up and begin to ask, ‘How can I help?’ so that when we’re done with those children Monday through Friday, when they come into your churches they can sit attentively for one hour and get the message. Until you start to do that you are just watering a basket. You have a bunch of people marking time in your congregation. They don’t even know how to listen for a message.”
Arguably, there has never been a better time for the faithful to coexist in America. Yet, whether one is whacking through the weeds of education policy or confronting the practical challenge of running an effective community institution, present to this day are historical tensions among ethnic and religious groups, natural human competition and, yes, that old debate over the separation of church and state.
Recounting her own sacrifices as a mother and teacher in service of her children’s education, Dr. Atolagbe concluded: “classical education is worth whatever sacrifice we all have to make to ensure that it happens.”