Songs of Hope

TICKETS

With "Songs of Hope," Durham CAN has put together a powerful line-up of performers that represent much of the variety and strength of what Durham is.  We are a multi-racial, multi-ethnic community.  We have strong educational institutions.  We have creative business leaders and civil servants. We have many styles and tastes.  Songs of Hope aspires to display that range of life in Durham.

The list of performing artists includes

• Shukr7—a South Asian Folk band with a Bollywood sound
• Timothy Holley—cellist from NCCU
• Deja Blue—women’s a cappella singing group from Duke
• Latina Duet of Yolanda Correa and Victoria Perez—they promise to get us active
• Kadeisha Kilgore—liturgical dancer
• Terry Allebaugh—harmonica player
      and, the headline act of the program
• Lois Deloatch—internationally know jazz singer from Durham

This is a great opportunity to get out and be with other folks from Durham.  We will be celebrating the recent accomplishments of Durham CAN as we enjoy the talents of Durham's great artistic community.  "Songs of Hope" takes place on Sunday, November 13, at 5:00 pm to 6:30 pm, at Duke Memorial United Methodist Church, 504 W. Chapel Hill St., downtown, across the street from the police department.

"Songs of Hope" is a fundraising benefit concert for Durham CAN.  Tickets are $30.  There is much more work to be done on affordable housing, jobs that pay living wages, better schools and opportunities for youth, promoting fair policing and better police-community relationships, and safety and opportunity for all citizens of our county and city.  This is important work, and Durham CAN steps up to take the lead again and again, bringing the power of thousands of people who care about one another and about our community.  That's who we are.  We bring together people from all across our county and city to make living in Durham better for all our residents.  Please take this great opportunity to join others for an evening of entertainment and a contribution to the ongoing work of Durham CAN.  You can order tickets online, or you can contact me for tickets as well.

Affordable Housing: Can Durham Make Progress Soon?

Everyone running for city office in Durham has been talking about affordable housing.  There are many ideas bouncing back and forth.  The need for affordable housing is a big and complex problem that will require solutions from many sectors and with many strategies.  I don't think anyone doubts that.

Durham needs better wages from its employers.  While major employers in Durham have made commitments to paying a livable wage, still many of Durham's hard-working citizens make poverty wages.  Workers at many levels of income must work in various parts of the city and county, including downtown.  Durham City workers making a livable wage cannot afford housing downtown.  In fact, a livable wage worker makes less than half what the it would take to afford an apartment downtown at the average market rate.  The same goes for Durham County workers, Durham Public Schools workers, and Duke workers making a livable wage.  And those making minimum wage or a little more have even more difficulty finding affordable, quality housing.

Some might reply, "Everyone does not need to live downtown."  Of course that is true.  Yet good access to downtown with transit-based affordable housing and with affordable housing spread throughout the city, including downtown, makes sense.  Some downtown workers, at any income level, will want to live in various parts of the city and county.  Some also will prefer to be near their jobs.  Where it is possible to provide affordability in every part of town, it seems reasonable to take efforts to do so.

Everyone is talking about affordable housing, but it seems some have been talking past each other.  Mayor Bell has been promoting a rental subsidy from earmarked funds to make downtown affordable.  His plan could benefit many targeted families and persons whose income falls between 60% and 80% of the Area Median Income.  Yet many of Durham's workers, not necessarily living in poverty, fall below that 60% threshold. 

Councilwoman Catotti and other members of the council emphasized the need to have a comprehensive plan in mind as the City proposes and adopts specific affordable housing developments.  It is good that our Council is eager to plan rather than merely react.  A report that will contribute to promulgating a more comprehensive plan is already underway.  However, that does not in and of itself preclude moving ahead with a particular development which accords with the commitments the Council has already made as they continue to plan for even larger solutions.  Acting both now and in the future will help Durham work toward solving this complex problem.

Some approaches to subsidized housing are targeted toward very-low income citizens, some of whom are disabled or retired without adequate income to afford housing on their own.  Programs of the Housing Authority and other programs target providing housing to those people.  More is needed, as thousands of qualified households remain on waiting lists for years.

Between very low income and near median income, a group of workers are being squeezed out of housing.  Many of Durham's working citizens earn between 40% and 60% of AMI.  These workers and families would receive help from a project that draws upon the Low Income Housing Tax Credit program which allows a developer to reduce the cost of construction through tax credits.  Durham CAN, Self-Help Credit Union, and others have supported a downtown project that can build a large number of units of affordable housing next to the Durham Station Transit Center.

The Durham City Council primary elections have helped bring our focus onto affordable housing.  Everyone who received high percentages of the votes has been outspoken on the need for rapid and strong action to keep Durham affordable to all of its residents.  Now is the time to press forward on achieving success in developing affordable housing in all of Durham's neighborhoods, and with special focus on affordable housing near future transit stations.

Those who have talked past one another can arrive at proposals on which all can agree.  Affordable housing for citizens that brings together people of various income levels living in shared communities is a worthy goal.  It is achievable in steps we can take now and for the long haul.  As the November election approaches, citizens need to continue supporting candidates who are ready to solve the lack of affordable housing and make Durham a city open to all of its people.

Everyone Wants Affordable Housing--But How to Do It?

One sure thing came out of today's Durham City Council work session discussion on agenda item 29:  Affordable housing draws strong support from Durham's City Council.  What kind of development to carry out is where there is disagreement.  Some support a Durham Can proposal for a development that could provide 80-100 units of housing affordable for households making 40% to 60% of the Area Median Income, which would be up to $43,000 for a household of two people.  Working class, lower end of the middle class--about  40% of Durham's population is below that threshold.  They are people with steady jobs, earning a salary or a high hourly wage, starting families, building careers.  They are the backbone of our community.

Others insist any development should have a wider range of incomes, including some above the AMI.  One comment from Mayor Bell praised a development that has 40 units above AMI and 100 units below AMI.  That calculates to over 70% below AMI, and certainly there should be room for much or most of that to include the targeted population of 40 to 60% of AMI.

Others spoke in more vague language of "some" affordable housing.  Reasonably, a mixed-income development which targets affordable housing would not fall below offering homes to at least 15% of resident families who make below 60% of AMI.  But I think we can do better than that. 

The only sort of sour note in the conversation was the way that some people implied that Durham CAN was proposing to build a Cabrini-Green Homes style of housing structure.  The comparison is far off base.  Unlike that infamous Chicago development of thousands of highly concentrated public housing units, this proposal is for no more than 100 units.  It is not a public housing project, but a private venture supported through a public partnership.  The target income range, while below AMI, is at 40% AMI a higher base level than Habitat for Humanity housing (starting at 30% AMI) and has the same upper limit at 60% AMI.  Although I do not see why providing housing for very low income residents should be a problem for downtown planning, that is not what this particular proposal aims to do.  On the east end of downtown, Durham is having good success in building strong neighborhoods with even very low income levels. Higher income citizens are eagerly moving into East Durham.  People are not destined to remain so divided, unless market forces work alone to shape housing.  Several speakers praised diversity.  But diversity is exactly what current downtown development is preventing.

In conjunction with adjacent buildings, it would be part of a mixed-income neighborhood strategy and a strong head start to catch up with the goal of 15% affordable housing near the transit station.  Right now there is 0%, and none planned in the "pipeline" of development that will lead to 2200+ units within a half mile of Durham Station.  Even 100 units will be less than 5% of the goal for affordability.  There is much more to do, and getting this development underway will be a good start.

I remember getting a list of salaries for professors at one of the area universities a few years ago.  Barely a third of faculty at this historic university would make a salary above 60% of the AMI.  These are committed, hard-working, highly intelligent, community-minded citizens, many of whom live in Durham.  They are strong contributors to any community.  I think people like these university professors, along with school teachers, artists, construction workers, police officers, mechanics, and others who would fall in this income category are exactly the kinds of citizens we want living in any of our neighborhoods.

I believe there is still an opportunity to make this project happen at Durham Station.  Either Durham CAN's proposal or some other version of a development including significant affordable housing is right for this property.

Durham's Housing Crisis and the Wise Exhortation of James

Today I heard a sermon based on a passage from the New Testament Letter of James.  It made me think about the current crisis of affordable housing in Durham and strategies to fix this problem.  Addressed as a letter, James looks more like a collection of wisdom teaching and moral exhortations.  Rev. Dr. William C. Turner, Jr., pointed us to the first ten verses of chapter 2.

My brothers and sisters, do you with your acts of favoritism really believe in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ? For if a person with gold rings and in fine clothes comes into your assembly, and if a poor person in dirty clothes also comes in, and if you take notice of the one wearing the fine clothes and say, “Have a seat here, please,” while to the one who is poor you say, “Stand there,” or, “Sit at my feet,” have you not made distinctions among yourselves, and become judges with evil thoughts? Listen, my beloved brothers and sisters. Has not God chosen the poor in the world to be rich in faith and to be heirs of the kingdom that he has promised to those who love him? But you have dishonored the poor. Is it not the rich who oppress you? Is it not they who drag you into court? Is it not they who blaspheme the excellent name that was invoked over you?

You do well if you really fulfill the royal law according to the scripture, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” But if you show partiality, you commit sin and are convicted by the law as transgressors. For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become accountable for all of it.

Housing has been driving economic restructuring for more than a decade.  At first, it was the housing bubble created by overinvestment and irrational exuberance about buying up mortgages.  That led to all kinds of bad risks in writing mortgage loans, misleading people without experience in dealing with real estate markets, repeated selling of a property for inordinate profits, lying about the reliability of mortgage-backed securities, and in general lots of swindling, taking the money, and running.

When that manipulated, false market crashed, more restructuring happened through a foreclosure crisis.  Housing values dropped so far that many business's and investor's paper wealth disappeared overnight.  High-risk securities and credit default swaps were exposed to be the emperor's new clothes.  An economic recession led to massive layoffs and soaring unemployment.  That put millions of people into foreclosure.  Efforts to ease the foreclosure crisis failed as the "bailout" turned out to benefit only the banks, the brokerages, and the very actors who had caused the economic crisis.  Average workers and homeowners were left high and dry, unable to pay for their overpriced mortgages.  The powers of government and financial institutions resisted any serious plan to offer principle reduction or debt forgiveness, which had successfully restored the economy after the Great Depression.

People who did manage to stay in their homes found the new housing market to have very low demand, so that if they needed to move or get more space for a larger family, it was almost impossible to sell their homes.  Slowly, the market started to recover.  First, all the bargain housing sold.  Next, slowly people began to be able to sell near the uninflated prices before the housing bubble.  There are still many pockets of foreclosed neighborhoods, and not all housing prices have recovered.

But now we are seeing what looks to be another bubble emerging.  Cities and municipalities are putting capital into downtowns.  They are trying to bring recovery and prosperity to city centers.  A new generation, facing a long period of high gasoline prices and tired of traffic jams for commuters has regained interest in living downtown.  These trends attract developers, which is something that is good for all of us.  Every city wants to see vibrant businesses and neighborhoods.  However, prices are skyrocketing for central city housing.  As rents and purchase prices rise, speculators begin to look into other nearby streets and communities for more land to buy up.  Lower cost housing gets razed, and the occupants have to look elsewhere, away from their neighborhoods and friends, to find a place to live.

We know this process as gentrification.  Some see it as only good--better housing units replace older, unmodernized, sometimes run-down units.  Property values rise.  More money in the neighborhoods attracts businesses and jobs.  I don't think anyone is against those kinds of things.  But many are bothered by the callousness that some have about displacement of people, relationships, institutions, and communities.  They also wonder why it is that lower income people always get displaced and told to go somewhere else.  Why can't redevelopment create spaces for people to continue in the networks and neighborhoods where their families have lived for years and decades?  Why is redevelopment only targeted to attract new colonizers of old and established communities?

No one is surprised that developers want to maximize their profits on the risk they take in building new housing.  We know they won't take those risks if they can't expect to make a profit.  Building new housing takes big up-front capital investment, so we don't begrudge developers a profit.  On the other hand, part of building a good city to live in means that people of various income levels need to share in the benefits the city has to offer.  If I live in Durham, I will depend on city, county, state, and commercial institutions to help structure schools, fire protection, medical care, and public safety.  Doctors and entrepreneurs, pharmaceutical executives and hi-tech wizards may have six- and seven-figure incomes.  But teachers, firefighters, nurses, and police will live on more meager salaries.  Shop clerks, wait staff, cooks, mechanics, maintenance workers, and cleaning staff--all of these people will contribute to making a city a good place to live.  They are fellow-members of the community, not merely servants to the ones who have more money.  All of us need a place to live.  All of us deserve to enjoy the benefits of a flourishing city.

That's why, in the wisdom of our civic traditions, leaders have seen fit to put in place programs and incentives to make sure there is adequate housing for people of many levels of income.  One such program, the Low-Income Housing Credit, provides tax subsidies for developing affordable housing that enable developers to make a profit.  Durham CAN and Self-Help Credit Union want to use that subsidy to build 80 to 100 units of housing downtown, by the Durham Station Transportation Center and across from the NC Mutual building.  City leaders have expressed a desire to see better affordable housing opportunities, and by donating this land for affordable housing development, they can do their part in helping make Durham affordable to more of its citizens.

These units would be affordable to people who make 40% to 60% of the median income of Durham County.  That means up to $37,000 for a household of one, or $43,000 for a household of two, and slightly more for larger households.  These people, working hard to bring home enough money to feed, clothe, and shelter their families are of equal importance to a flourishing city as those who make the median salary or more.  Durham has had notable success in the recent past with some affordable housing, and we hate to see that only in the past.  We are hoping this project can be the next planting of a seed, the down payment, toward a new strategy and plan for creating more high-quality, affordable housing in neighborhoods all around Durham.

Sadly, there are some who have said that downtown is for the millennials, for entrepreneurs, for people with higher incomes.  They say that Durham can find a way to provide affordable housing for lower incomes somewhere else, somewhere less in demand, somewhere less desirable, somewhere out of the way of the profits a select few desire to make.  Those kinds of arguments sound to me like there is some kind of insider decision-making going on about who gets to live in what neighborhood and who gets pushed out.  It seems that someone has in mind a "certain quality of people" that are acceptable for Durham's nice downtown.  Others need not apply.  If there is no property available for affordable housing downtown, the doughnut hole, then the next step, and we see it happening already, will be no affordable housing in the doughnut ring around downtown.

Moderate- to low-income people get pushed farther and farther away from the neighborhoods with rich heritage.  Will the last remnant of Hayti be a museum surrounded by residents who know and care nothing about the struggle and achievement of families who built a prosperous community when all odds were against them?  Will Walltown go the way of Brookstown, Hickstown, and Crest Street, to be a faint memory of a lost past?  Cities change, and neighborhoods change.  That is inevitable.  But will people of various economic levels have access to the historic neighborhoods of Durham?  Or will the profiteering incentive lead to closing off the central city from people of moderate to low income?

Enter the wise exhortation of James.  James saw a problem in some churches of his time.  He saw that people became overly impressed by the wealth or affluence of some who came to their churches.  They catered to them.  They escorted them to the best seats.  They fawned over them.  But when people whose clothes were plain or even a bit worn came into the church, they directed them to the side or the back, or even suggested they stand by the wall sit on the floor.  The text says they were showing favoritism, based on the apparent affluence of those who came to their churches.

James reminded them of the Lord whom they serve.  He reminded them of the way of Jesus, who was himself from a working class home, born under bad conditions, sympathetic with beggars, outcasts, prostitutes, and others who found themselves on hard times.  His co-workers had mostly made their livings fishing and other hard work.  James, probably from the same family as Jesus, knew what it was to be looked down on by those who thought they were better.  He reminded them that the social dynamic of poverty was exploitation, and that the wealthy gained their affluence often through paying low wages or otherwise mistreating their workers.

James knew showing favoritism was not the way that Jesus had taught and planned for his followers to live.  "Love your neighbor as yourself" was Jesus' motto.  His life and ways had shown he meant every neighbor--Samaritan and Jew, blind and sighted, man and woman, worker and manager.  If it came to a question of injustice, Jesus took the side of the oppressed and stood up to the oppressor.  James said this to remind the churches that Jesus had come to reinstate, to kick-start, God's plan for this world as a good society, "There should be no one in need among you."

So when leaders in our city say that downtown is only for millennials, we wonder which millennials do they mean?  What about millennials who become teachers?  Don't some millennials become firefighters and police officers?  I think that some millennials are nurses, city staffers, cooks, and mechanics.  Aren't they welcome downtown?  Of course, I don't think anyone intends to have only one age group in the neighborhood.  Will there be room for all economic levels, age groups, and other segments of society, or are we back to drawing red lines on our maps to indicate who we will let live in which districts?

Now I understand that James is writing to the churches, and that Durham is not a church.  I also recognize that municipalities may not do everything the way churches do.  Yes, I am familiar with the distinction between church and state.  But I also want to say that the faith of the church is that Jesus came into the world to recall Israel, and all others who would come to join in, to build the kind of beloved community that God made this world to be.  While I would not think it appropriate to ask the city to enforce everything the church believes in, I do think there are many points at which our purposes of building a flourishing community may coincide.  Not cordoning off portions of the community by wealth and class and ethnicity and race and age and family size is one of the goals that the church and the city may have in common.

One theologian said that there are times when the social agenda of the church may appropriately blend with the social agenda of the communities with which the church shares space and time.  He said it is kind of like a "spiritual osmosis."  An idea like "no more shacks" that drove the Christian community of Koinonia Farms in Americus, Georgia, to create the housing model of Habitat for Humanity over time became widely accepted by people who had no connection to Christian churches.  Church or not, most people see that this plan works, and volunteers come from all creeds and no creed to build Habitat houses together.  Making room for affordable housing in the central city, near transit stations, in the doughnut hole and all the surrounding rings of the city is a similarly worthwhile goal.  People don't want to be displaced.  They want to be able to find housing near their jobs, near their schools, near the places they like to go for fellowship, friends, and food.  At all income levels, people want to share in the good things of life.

Durham must not have a housing policy which says to the wealthy and affluent, "Please, as our favorites, take the best places in which we have invested heavily, creating them just for people of your kind," and then turns to the moderate- and low-income citizen and says, "You, who are not our favorites, are on your own, and you'll have to go away from all the good things our city has invested in, because they are for someone else."  I think James's wise exhortation speaks to this issue of urban development.  Let's keep the best, that is all, of Durham available to all of it's citizens, and not show favoritism.

Where Can Durham's Workers Live?

In October 2012, Indy Week published an article called "Durham's Affordable Housing Crisis," written by Lisa Sorg.  It featured the closing of the Lincoln Apartments, reported to be eliminating affordable dwellings for 200 low-income residents.  On a much larger scale, it told the story of too few affordable housing units for so many of the working poor.  These people work in the service industries building a new economy in which only the highest levels of management see increasing wages.

What has often been misunderstood as a problem for only those working poor has become a problem for many workers holding critical public service jobs:  police officers, fire fighters, school teachers and other school employees.  In addition, as new economic development occurs, restaurant and cafe serving staff, maintenance and cleaning workers, retail workers, and many others need housing that is convenient to their work.  The affordable housing crisis is a workforce housing crisis.

City planners and architects have had opportunity to learn a great deal about how to develop affordable housing successfully, if they want to learn.  Mixed income communities are much more successful than overly stratified, class segregated communities.  The world of work and commerce is made up of people with many different roles and responsibilities, and they constantly share space and interact.  Clerical workers and managers, store owners and checkout clerks, chefs and food preps--all need a place to live, accessibility to their work, places to eat and shop, and safe neighborhoods.

New age redlining would say that certain urban playgrounds are for entrepreneurs and young urban pioneers, not for low-income workers.  But how is this different from the kind of politics of urban development that led to ghettos and housing "projects" that became icons of public planning failure?

Durham's affordable housing situation has not been solved since 2012, and in fact it threatens to become much worse.  As older neighborhoods become destinations for house flipping and gentrification, Durham is developing a new doughnut hole where only the wealthy can live.  Houses that needed repair are now being restored, enlarged, and upgraded, taking housing out of the affordable range.  Property values surge, meaning that even more modest homes in a redeveloping neighborhood also become unaffordable.  I'm not telling anything new, just saying it again.  Most of Durham's already limited affordable housing is threatening to disappear.

The incentives adopted to urge developers to include affordable housing in their projects have not produced the desired outcome.  With thousands of new housing units built downtown, none are affordable.  Moreover, some developers want to claim that a house costing $250k is still affordable.  What do they think that most workers earn in Durham?  I am for increasing wages, but while we are waiting for that to happen, housing costs need to be proportional.

Recent study of Durham's affordable housing situation recognize that the potential of Light Rail Transit means neighborhoods with affordable housing may see their property values rise and the affordability disappear.  This creates a mandate for the city and county to take action.  The best leverage they have is existing property that they own.  In these situations, they can require affordability as part of a plan for development.  Federal housing funds and various public and private partners committed to affordable housing are available for this kind of development.  What it will take is a public commitment to see that all residents can afford quality, safe housing.

Durham CAN and Self Help have proposed using a parcel of land in downtown Durham for a mixed-income affordable housing development.  The land is next to Durham Station Transportation Center and near NC Mutual and American Tobacco.  It would give members of Durham's workforce access to housing near the jobs and commerce which are booming downtown.  Approximately 90 high quality units of various size could be made available through this project.  City officials have been looking at this proposal, and it is no surprise that there are differences of opinion about how to use this piece of real estate.

Often the conversations about such projects get derailed by misunderstandings or out-and-out misinformation.  A focused affordable housing development is not the same thing as a ghetto.  Mixed-income affordable housing provides opportunities for low-wage workers as well as for low-salary professionals like police and teachers who are being squeezed out of town by rising housing costs.  NC State Employees Credit Union has a strong interest in affordable housing for its members, and funds to support projects. 

To be honest, some of the arguments against affordable housing are coded language against potential Latino or African American residents.  One would be hard-pressed to find someone who would publicly oppose ethnic and racial diversity in downtown, but approaches to affordable housing which push it all away from downtown still smell and look like redlining.  Durham does not want to take the path of cities which cannot recruit these workers because the affordable housing is just too far away.

Mixed-income affordable housing in places where retail and service businesses are already thriving does not lead to blight.  In this location, affordable housing will lead to improving neighborhoods, greater use of transportation services, and a stronger Durham.  Success in this case can help to promote future projects that will build a better Durham for all of us.

Organizing and Liturgy

At the end of the Durham CAN Delegates' Assembly last night, I gave closing remarks about how we move forward.  The overarching theme was linking liturgy, as the work of the people, to the continuing organizing to be done on policing, jobs, and housing.  Here are those remarks.

Hello.  I am Mike Broadway, Associate Minister at Mt. Level Missionary Baptist Church and part of the Clergy and Strategy teams of Durham CAN.

It has been some time since we have gathered in this kind of assembly to testify, to plan, and to make promises to one another about making our city and county more of what it ought to be, more filled with opportunity and a good life for all of its residents.  It has been 231 days, to be exact.  For me, it has been even longer.  After four and a half years sojourning in Central Texas, through many changes for me and for Durham, I’m blessed to be among you again as part of this great work of building power together. 

Many preachers have stood before you today, and maybe it seemed like a liturgical assembly at times.  While we preachers are only a small part of the leadership of Durham CAN, it is fitting that we think of this gathering as a liturgy.  The word liturgy means “the work of the people.”  It comes from an ancient Greek term that describes the duties that people in a city have toward one another.  Those with talent, with property, with power, with resources have responsibility to contribute toward making life in the community better for everyone.  Liturgy, not merely the words and actions we do in our houses of worship, is the work we are called to do for the good of one another, for the common good.  It is learning to use the power that God gives us.  It is not confined to a worship service; it expands into public service.  We are all liturgists—we are public servants.

This duty of public service also has deep roots in the story of God’s calling out a people.  Abraham and Sarah of old were told that God would bless them and their descendents.  Those blessings, however, would not be for clutching tightly and hoarding.  They would be blessed so that they could be a blessing to others.  Have you been blessed with a position of influence?  With ability to negotiate?  With connections and power?  With a job?  With a home?  With friendships?  Do you have energy to work?  Do you have a deep resistance to injustice?  In all these cases, you are blessed.  And remember, like Sarah and Abraham, you have those blessings so that you can become a blessing to others.

Today we have testified and poured out our hopes for our neighborhoods, for jobs, for housing, for living wages, for young people’s opportunities to learn and work—these are the liturgical prayers of the people.  In our conversations, we have made progress and promises with one another today.  That’s how we build our power.  We have agreed that the time when we could ignore unjust practices of profiling in policing will come to an end in our city, and we will work together to see that day.  We have taken a first step toward concrete progress, should I say frame, brick and mortar progress, on abundant affordable housing.  We have made plans to strengthen relationships across the community to make sure that our out-of-work neighbors have opportunities both now and in the future to train for, apply for, and to work in good, living-wage jobs.  These promises are just the beginning.  They are the confessions and creeds of the liturgy.  Having recited them, another powerful work of the people begins now.

Take the hand of the people on each side of you.  We made promises and agreements.  We are in this work together.  Turn to your neighbor and say, “I’ve been blessed.”  That’s right.  We’ve all been blessed, and we all have blessings to share.  Now turn to your neighbor again and say, “We have the power.  It’s time to do the work.” 

With thankful hearts for the seeds of justice planted in us, for the blessings we have received, for the Spirit’s powerful work among us, for the visions and opportunities ahead of us, let’s all go forth from this place and do the work of the people.  Thank you all, and good night.