How to secure your denomination's demise

The recent report on the United Methodist's quadrennial General Conference created a wave of disappointment within that denomination. Hopeful advocates of marriage equality for Gays and Lesbians were crushed when again their denomination refused to budge from a long-standing resistance to what many consider one of the last bastions of the denial of civil rights. The vote was narrowly against moving ahead on a milder motion that would remove the words "refrain from judgement......" from the church's rules. Nor would the church decide to remove the words, "incompatible with Christian teachings..." Marriage equality and even domestic partnerships were again put aside.

If I were a United Methodist I too would be seething about these decisions. But I am a member of a denomination that won't even address the issue. So who am I to complain about these religious cousins?

What if the heirs of the Wesleys' hadn't even considered the matter because they had decided that their Conference should not even hold votes on controversial issue? So they would meet every four years to hear sermons and receive reports. Ah, but their members would be forever free of having to take a position on the war, civil rights, torture, economic justice, women's rights, justice for farm workers, on and on and on. How peaceful! How deadly!!

In recent months various voices within the Christian Church (DOC) have started pushing to have "Sense of the Assembly" resolutions off the agenda. Opponents suggest that such resolutions are too divisive to be considered, because they may further rupture the already fragile state of the denomination. The grumbling began when a large congregation in Oklahoma raised the issue before the denomination's General Board. At this point the leadership of the Disciples has the matter under discussion. While no decision has been made, there is more than a straw in the wind to tell us this is the way much of the movers and shapers are thinking of going.

The focus of the Oklahoma church's anger is a resolution adopted in last summer's General Assembly titled, The church's response to the war in Iraq. I was at the Assembly and was part of the debate, and frankly, the meeting being held in Fort Worth, Texas, I was mildly surprised that it was adopted--by what seemed to be approaching a two-thirds margin. The resolution was a clear statement opposing the war as being contrary to Jesus' clear perspective on violence, as well as including a handful of other reasons, most of which came from a clear theological imperative.

According to a letter I received from one of the congregation's elders, among the reasons for objecting to the Assembly even considering such resolutions were:

• The resolution was made up of assumptions that may or may not be true.
• It would comfort those who wish to continue to kill our troops.
• And finally, it was seen as a "liberal political statement."

Had the resolution failed, while those who supported it would have been deeply disappointed, nobody would have suggested that therefore we no longer take a position on such things.

Significant numbers, and much of the energy behind these Assemblies every other year, come from DPF (Disciples Peace Fellowship), GLAD Alliance (Gay, Lesbian, and Affirming Disciples) and DJAN (Disciples Justice Action Network). While I doubt if these groups would officially boycotte assemblies, many of us would just not find it important to attend, and the economic investment by these groups would be substantially paired down.

So far the denominational leaders have found considerable support for the effort to eliminate these resolutions. Now it is time for the rest of us to speak up--to the leadership, and in our congregations.

But that's just my opinion. What's yours?

Charles Bayer

To visit the Disciples Justice Advocacy Blog, PLEASE CLICK HERE.

To contribute to the justice ministry of DJAN,
PLEASE CLICK HERE.

The Religious-Political Dilemma

I am often pulled by two competing forces. Sometimes these exertions seem to run on parallel tracks, and sometimes they are dramatically separate. My first loyalty is to the church, its history, its place in society and the Christ whose vision it serves. But I am also up to my neck in the political process, and particularly what I believe are the ethics which form its base. So, as a Christian, I work for a flat-out Christian organization, Progressive Christians Uniting, and I helped found another one, Disciples Justice Action Network. But, as an individual and a citizen, I am also deeply involved in the local Democratic party, and am passionate about the implications of the current political campaign.

Clearly my party affiliation is not simply an extension of the ethic implicit in the gospel. I have been a municipal politician and know from experience that there is enough stench in any partisan organization to temper one's loyalty. What is more, the wall of separation between church and state is both tall and solid.

Recently a spate of books has focused on the dilemma many of us confront as we try to reconcile these two powerful forces. By far the most incisive is Souled Out, by E. J. Dionne, Jr, a theologically conservative Catholic layman and a political columnist for The Washington Post. Dionne sketches what he believes to be the ethical imperatives of authentic religion including citations from Augustine to Barth and the Niebuhrs. He suggests that inherent in Jesus' teachings are ethical imperatives concerning justice, peace, non-violence, equity, and humility. Dionne insists that the religious right, captured by a political cabal, has seriously distorted both authentic faith and the American vision by reducing the Christian witness to sexual issues, abortion, homosexuality and stem-cell research.

Here is where I need help--dear readers. For the life of me I cannot understand how anyone dealing seriously with what Jesus had to say, could politically support preemptive war, torture as a national policy, an economic system in which the rich grow fabulously richer at the expense of the economic under-classes, a national policy based on our capacity to destroy anyone in our way----on and on and on. If one political party seems to affirm these things, and an alternate party is clear in opposing them, how can I maintain political neutrality and still affirm my commitment to the way of Jesus? On the other hand, how can I fully commit myself to the victory of a particular political party because of my Christian faith without implicitly baptizing it as "the Christian party"?

There are obviously areas in which each party has a positive contribution to make, and areas where each may flat out be wrong. Nevertheless as both a Christian and a citizen when I find religion and politics with parallel goals I realize that I must have a foot clearly planted in each camp.

Politics is very seductive, but so is religion. As a citizen and a churchman I need help in keeping these two loyalties in touch with each other but not hopelessly intertwined. Any advice?

Charles Bayer