Let's Practice What She Preached

We are all honored by the President’s selection of our General Minister and President, Sharon Watkins, to deliver the sermon at the traditional day-after-the inauguration service at the Washington Cathedral. We Disciples may be justly proud, but the honor goes to her. And a mighty sermon it was!

Dr. Watkins invoked both the thrust of the gospel and the crisis of the decisions facing the new President and his Administration. And she did it without bowing to the gooey piety and sexism that may have marked another religious presentation at the swearing in ceremony itself. She called on the President to hold his ground on America's--and our faith’s --deepest values, and not to be drawn away from his ethical center. "Stay centered on the values that have empowered us to move through the perils of earlier times."

How did she suggest he do this? Her central illustration was the old Cherokee story of the two inner wolves. One was anger, vengefulness, resentment, self-pity and fear. The other was compassion, hope, truth and love.

"Which one wins, grandfather?" asks he grandson.

"The one you feed," he replied.

Dr. Watkins went on to take a quick look at the attitudes and policies which grow out of feeding the noble wolf. They are simply put: compassion, reaching out toward others--even our enemies--seeking peaceful alternatives, putting down the sword, imaging a world where liberty and justice prevail, welcoming the tired and poor of the world---an image enshrined by Emma Lazareth and displayed on the Statue of Liberty.

In concrete specific terms this clearly means a commitment in law, as well as in theory, to both domestic and international policies centering on mercy, good-will, justice and peace.

It strikes me that these are the very policies and actions that have been spelled out in the clear convictions articulated by our denomination year after year as we have honed them to sharply put points in our General Assemblies. In these gatherings, through their statements, we have fed the noble wolf biennial after biennial.

We now seem faced with the temptation, not to feed the vicious wolf, but to increasingly starve the noble one. We seem afraid that too much ecclesial protein may cause indigestion among those of our diminished number who take a much more cautious approach to the very issues Dr. Watkins, by implication, asked the President not to abandon. Let’s hope we are not reduced to mush in a world in which the Lord of the church asks for the kind of ecclesial response our General Minister and President asked of President Obama.

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

SWEETNESS and LIGHT?

A colleague recently reminded me of the huge difference between the Christmas stories in Luke and Matthew. Luke’s account is sweetness and light. It starts with the beautiful recitation of Gabriel’s visit to Mary. There are angels who sing to shepherds, telling them not to be afraid. There is “Peace on earth good will to all.” Mary treasures the message in her heart, and the shepherds return home praising God.

Matthew’s account is dark, foreboding and sinister. Wise men get to Herod, who is “frightened” that a rival had been born in Bethlehem. After their visit to a “house,” they take a return route that bypasses Herod. Mary, Joseph and the child flee to Egypt, whereupon Herod orders the murder of all the male infants in Bethlehem. Rachel weeps for her slaughtered children. Not until they hear of Herod’s death is the Holy Family safe to return.

Guess which story everybody reads at Christmas eve services? A few innocuous verses about the wise men might be sandwiched in, but the darkness of the rest of Matthew’s account is ignored. We don’t want news of trouble, especially at Christmas. We want sweetness and light.

Like most of you, I want to hear the positive about my world. Take all that grim stuff and bury it. If I have to deal with it, I will, but if I can keep from having it hit me in the face, life will be much easier. What is more, there may be family disagreements about the meaning of these grim tidings.

There are scores of churches these days that only traffic in the positive. You won’t hear a discouraging word at the Crystal Cathedral, or at Joel Ostein’s’ mammoth converted arena in Houston. So we are all tempted to go happily along as if there was no ungodly prolonged war in Iraq, no devastation of Palestinians with weapons we have provided, no bread winners who have lost their jobs their homes and their hopes, no increased distance between the rich and the poor, none of the despair and poverty I recently encountered in Kenya, no Gays and Lesbians still treated like non-persons. And if any of these things inadvertently crosses our path, we pretend that it is not a matter good middle-class Christians should deal with.

Heaven help us if it ends up on our agendas and we have to take a position. So we are reduced to studying it, discerning the various ways we may think about it, writing long balanced documents about whether it is this way or that. After all Christians might disagree, and that would be discomforting....

Certainly in today’s world we are hearing crashing overtones that sound much more like Mathew’s perspective than Luke’s. So what is the role of the church—our church?

As you might guess, I have been musing about the move to disarm Assembly resolutions. I still must withhold final judgment, since we are not yet certain what shape the recommendation will take when it comes to Indianapolis in July. At this writing it appears that there will be a severe limit to the number of issues we will discuss. What is more, no matter how critical or timely an issue might be, we may be prohibited from discussing it again for the next six or possibly twelve years.

Several things are not yet clear.

1-Obviously the move to have more discussion both prior to the Assemblies and during them is on target and necessary. Congregations, ministers groups, Regional meetings seminaries, General units all need to be involved in intelligent give and take on important issues before the church and the world. Every matter before the GA must be preceded by a clear analysis produced by our best theological minds. While congregations need to be heard from, all wisdom doesn’t come from groups of local church members who may operate more out of political presuppositions than a clear understanding of the meaning of the gospel. If everything had been left up to congregations, we might still have segregation across the South.

2-The case has yet to be made for our dealing with critical issues one year and assuming that nothing can be said about them for the next several.

3-Who will filter what we are actually permitted to discuss, and what will be the criteria? What will be the open appeal policy?

4-Finally, when all the study documents and discussion groups have finished their important work, will there be an up and down vote on the substance of a matter, or will we end up saying, “it might be this and it might be that.” In the latter case it will be obvious that the General Church had managed to finish off our taking positions on critical matters. So, many of us will go outside the denomination for clarity about the implications of the Christian faith.

But that’s just my opinion. What do you think?
Charles Bayer

Epiphany is a modern icon by Janet McKenzie. This icon and other religious art can be found at Bridge Building Images.

Please support the justice ministry of DJAN. If you forgot to mail your 2008 contribution, mail it soon. We can still accept 2008 checks until the end of the month. Thank you!

O THOSE NASTY RESOLUTIONS!

For the last couple of days I have been slogging through our Disciples Year Books from 1971 until 2006.

My purpose has been to look at controversial resolutions voted on from Assembly to Assembly. A couple of things immediately come to mind: First, no matter what we say about the serious issues facing the world, hardly anybody outside either reads them or pays the slightest attention to anything we have concluded.

Secondly, practically every decision we made has proved to be prophetic. What we approved has been affirmed by secular history. Those things we disapproved have widely been seen as unworthy. While we might have sweat blood and risked serious division, we have almost always been on the side of the angels.

This brace of observations leads me to two conclusions:

1-When we speak it has been to ourselves, not to society. I came out of seminary almost totally unformed outside my parochial boundaries. What did I know about war, justice, civil rights, prisons, labor relations, economic equity, the Equal Rights Amendment, conscientious objection, farm workers, the United Nations, gays and lesbians, nuclear proliferations on and on and on? Nada!!

On those occasions when I did ponder what God probably wanted, I believed I was far removed from anything the church had to say. And then I began to attend our Assemblies, and what a shock! I was in the main stream of the church’s best thinking. I was formed by what we had to say! There were clear ethical imperatives, and when I articulated them back in my congregations, it was with the support of the denomination.

While it may not matter whether anybody out there pays attention to what we say in our Assemblies, it is critical that inside the church a clear direction is being articulated. Not only young ministers but also an increasing number of lay folk have returned from these gatherings supported by what they heard to be God’s will for the world.

2-While our decisions may have risked ecclesial divisions, we have managed to articulate a clear sense that God has a purpose in the world and that the church is called to carry that vision. We are part of that dynamic march. We have been on the side of what is right.

Here are some of the things we voted to reject or "disapprove":

• Suspension of our nation’s financial support of the United Nations.
• Against amnesty for those who fled to Canada in opposition to the war in Vietnam.
• Deploring the Supreme Court’s decision easing abortion laws.
• Removal of our support for farm workers.
• The sole use of male terms when referring to God.
• A repudiation of liberation theology.
• Declaring homosexuality to be sin.
  

And here are a few of the things we voted to support:

• Ministry to persons in prison for conscience’s sake.
• Rejecting a governmental threat to our civil liberties.
• A call for economic justice.
• Support of farm workers (at least twice).
• Civil rights for all--(a number of resolutions).
• Rejecting “systems of death” in our national budget.
• Deploring capital punishment (twice).
• Support of the Equal Rights Amendment.
• Support of the United Nations.
• Civil liberties for gay and lesbian persons.
• Ending the arms race.
• Witnessing for world peace (a number of resolutions).
• Support of the Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty.
• Against torture as a national policy.
• Support for undocumented persons.
• A pledge of resistance concerning the invasion of Latin American nations.
• Dismantling the School of the Americas (which trains right-wing terrorists for Latin American dictators to use as killers in order to maintain political power).
• Support of pacifism as a way of life.
• Opposition to Star Wars (The strategic defense initiative).
• Opposition to AK-47s ands Uzis in the hands of civilians.
  
• For handgun control.
• Calling for health-care reform.
• Support for gay/lesbian participation in the life of the church.

And there is much more!! (As one of the founders of DJAN, I am proud to say that many of the prophetic social resolutions over the last 12 years have come from congregations related to and working with this much-needed justice ministry).

While the Year Books do not record the number of votes for and against, memory tells me that almost all of these issues were hotly debated and the vote mixed. I believe that the implication of doing away with controversial resolutions may leave us spiritually and ethically impoverished, and well behind the positive flow of history so necessary to the mission of a living church.

What if, when called to speak out, the prophets had said nothing, since it might be this or it might be that--and, God help us, it might even be controversial?

But that’s just my opinion.

So what do you think?

Charles Bayer

No Matter What the Church Does NOT say, The War is Still a Moral Issue!

Wendy and I have recently returned from Australia, a nation that has a lot going for it. The average income per couple is over $100,000 per year--and there are few enormous incomes which might distort that statistic. What is more, nobody needs to worry about health care, the costs of education or what will happen to them when they grow older. Not pouring hundreds of billions each year into a military machine has made possible these more human options.

While there we followed the Olympics on TV. That nation of 20 million earned more medals than any other country--given the size of its population. Four times as many as the 300 million from which we could choose our athletes.

There were distressing moments. While it didn't show on US TV, when on the opening night the athletes paraded into the Bird's Nest, the US delegation was greeted with boos as well as with cheers. OUCH! A government official asked all Aussie athletes, and others from down under, to wear something identifying their nationality so "they would not be mistaken for Americans." DOUBLE OUCH!

The Prime Minister was recently tossed out of office, not even surviving in his own own constituency. A major issue was the war in Iraq. His support of Bush left him nicknamed "Weed." Under the new government, Australian troops have gone home for good.

Now we are back in California to be confronted by a nation where an immoral war has become a secondary issue--at best. The conflict seems less important than the price of gasoline. We have been reduced to discovering how to get out of what we never should have gotten into.

What about the Disciples of Christ? Is the rape and occupation of a nation that did not and could not have attacked us a moral concern? Heavens, let's not have to take a position! We seem determined to eliminate all such uncomfortable matters from the agendas of our national meetings. This includes not only the war, but also torture, capital punishment, gun control---on and on and on. It might be this and it might be that, and since the denomination has within it people with various opinions, it behooves us to say nothing. It seems that a rather important Oklahoma congregation objected to the statement on the war passed at last summer's General Assembly. The leadership's panic was immediate. I have dealt with that in a published letter in the DisciplesWorld and in a prior blog column. But there is more to the story.

The Assembly resolution called for our General Minister and President to convey the adopted message to our congregations--and beyond. I have recently read her pastoral epistle. It is indeed pastoral. Any prophetic word or faithfulness to the resolution was smothered in support of those in the military, those who have lost loved ones in the war, and most of all, to the the chaplains, whose job is to take care of the troops. While all of that is appropriate, it is not an honest interpretation of the resolution. Indeed, it is to back off from its impact. So from the perspective of the GMP, we cannot--as a Church--criticize the war lest other congregations like the one in Oklahoma be offended. My guess is that GMP Watkins' cautious position will carry the day, and next summer's General Assembly will end our having to decide on anything larger than how to to fix our tired administrative structure.

There are those of us who will have to decide how to spend our time, energies and resources. Engaging in a denominational fight or even participating in future gatherings devoid of the clear imperatives of our faith will probably not be among the options . I wonder if we, the clergy and the lay leadership of our churches, have not only taken the war, as well as other critical issues, off the agenda, but have also settled for a religious perspective which says, "it might be this or it might be that--and what does it matter anyhow?

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

To read Sense-of-the-Assembly Resolution 0728 on 'The Church's Response to the War in Iraq,' PLEASE CLICK HERE.

To read more about the General Minister and President's 'Pastoral Letter on the War in Iraq,' PLEASE CLICK HERE.

To read more about the resolutions controversy, PLEASE CLICK HERE.

To join the hundreds of thousands of people who have signed the Statement Against the War, PLEASE CLICK HERE.

To find out more about DJAN, PLEASE CLICK HERE.

To support the justice ministry of DJAN, PLEASE CLICK HERE.

WHAT IS TORTURE?

Not too long ago--while I probably should have been busy doing something else--I got involved in watching the Senate Armed Services Committee attempting to find out just how high in the Administration the decision to torture suspected captives went. The President, and the officials who were testifying, claim that the United States doesn't torture anyone.

If you define a rattlesnake as having three foot long fangs, striking everything in sight without provocation, and automatically dividing into ten other snakes more deadly than the first, you can look around and say with a straight face, "See, there are no rattlesnakes here." The Administration has simply redefined torture as--get this--activities limited to extreme mental or physical suffering, organ failure or death. Eliminated from the definition are all those other activities that international law and the Geneva accords define as torture. Among them: drowning, nakedness, the use of dogs, sexual humiliation, keeping detainees awake for days at a time, extreme temperatures, confinement for years without any charges--- on and on and on--Since these do not meet the newly minted definition, voila---we don't torture.

It became obvious during the hearings that the disgraceful events at Abu Ghraib were not simply the night tricks of a few "bad apples"--privates and corporals, but practices authorized far up the chain of command by official memoranda. In the midst of the investigation by Congress comes the Supreme Court saying that the Constitution guarantees even to these detainees.

Two things strike me. First, I just cannot believe that my native land--this nation committed to justice and liberty for all-- is involved in torture--not only in a off-shore prison, but also in private prisons all over the globe. This can't be the America I love. We must be better than that. But the evidence is spotty at best.

Second, I am appalled that the church has had so little to say about this obscenity. At last comes George Hunsinger, Professor of Systematic Theology at the Princeton Theological Seminary, who has focused Christians and other people of faith on this issue, leading to the formation the National Religious Campaign Against Torture of which DJAN is a member and founding organization. But, aside from DJAN and a hand full of our churches, where are the rest of us? Where are you, and what are you doing about it?

At last years General Assembly, with the help of DJAN and the sponsorship of Shepherd Park Christian Church in the nation's Capitol, the Disciples did pass a solid resolution on torture--one that condemned torture, aligned us with NRCAT, and encouraged other Disciples to join and support this important ecumenical and interfaith effort to end torture. But since Fort Worth, I haven't heard a word from anybody about how we might actually implement that statement. Without anybody in the general offices focused on these sorts of issues, and with no meaningful financial or institutional support for those organizations that do, even critical resolutions dissolve with the morning mist.

The chances that our denomination will, in any meaningful way, invest itself in this or other crucial issues are remote. I have read the recent recommendation of our Administrative Committee that we eliminate all General Assembly Resolutions on these issues--a move supported by our GMP! This seems to mean that we may discuss, discern, hold workshops, listen ad-infinitum, but will always, at the end of the day, refuse to take a clear position.

The move in this direction originated in response to a large Oklahoma church, whose more vocal members objected to a resolution calling into question the current war against Iraq. In response, the thinking of many in our denomination's leadership seems to be this: since these questions might divide our already fragile church, we must be silent. However, even if we continue to take a public stand on hard issues, with no official device to put teeth into our words, we haven't done much that matters.

I hear from scores of retired ministers--and many more still active--who no longer even bother to participate in corporate church life--at least not ours. In my staff work with Progressive Christians Uniting, I am in touch with large numbers of committed young people who refuse to get involved in what they believe in that great conspiracy of silence called "the church."

If the General Assembly descends to a "How are you?" family reunion--with what is left of the family--it will simply lose a substantial part of a new turned-on generation.

I love the church--this church--but I guess I have other things to do than to spend what time I have left saying, "it might be this and it might be that, but since we do not all agree, we should be content to say nothing."

But that's just my opinion. What's yours?
Charles Bayer
candwbayer@verizon.net


To read Sense-of-the-Assembly Resolution 0721 on 'The Elimination of Torture, PLEASE CLICK HERE.

To read more about the Campaign to End Torture,
PLEASE CLICK HERE.

To join the1800 people who have signed the Statement Against Torture, PLEASE CLICK HERE.

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

WHY MANY OF OUR BRIGHTEST YOUNG LEADERS GET DOMESTICATED OR DROP OUT

I want to follow up on my last post. If one of the positive marks of our age is the emergence of a new generation of creative progressive young adults, what is the possibility that these visionaries will persist in their cultural idealism? The evidence is not clear. Certainly in the business world young idealists who come out of college ready to take on the world, are most often taken over by it.

When I talk to young seminarians, I find the same hopeful vision I described in my last post. In seminary they have come face to face with a fresh understanding of the Bible, theology and the social dynamic which flows from them. They, therefore, tend to look with progressive eyes at war, gun control, capital punishment, the rights of Gay and Lesbian persons, economic justice and the host of issues seen from the perspective of enlightened Christian faith.

The longer they are in seminary the stronger this vision seems to be. They know they are called out of the world to reenter it as agents of the Prince of Peace. They intend to become vital advocates of what Jesus defined as The Commonwealth of God.

But talk to them five years later! While a few maintain their vision, far more have been domesticated. What has happened? They realize they have to survive in a congregation that is not only unconcerned about the issues that had excited their dreams, but is often hostile to them. They have become program managers of religious clubs of comfortable people, whose prejudices have been untouched by the gospel.

They tell me that since they have members on all sides of these critical issues, they cannot safely speak out. The dynamic of the gospel has been drained out of them. They cannot be prophets. They are institutional caretakers. "I can't afford to say anything about these matters, because I can't take the risk of losing one more family." Ever hear--or say that?

What is their support? The mainline denominations are so fragile, ecclesial leadership is also hesitant to take any risks. My church, the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ), has been "discerning" the Gay Lesbian issue for a more than a decade and has concluded nothing. To this date we have not developed the leadership at the top ready to say, "Here is where we need to go." The attention has rather been on cheer-leading what is left of a once-thriving organization.

Many of our brightest most hopeful young leaders have dropped out of the church altogether, quit their pastorates and are trying to find their way otherwise. Others believe they can't quit--even thought they may like to--because what will they do then?

Some are domesticated even before leaving seminary. This may be particularly true among commuters, who already serve churches and get to classes one or two days a week. Missing the intellectual stimulation which goes on in a full-time academic community, they are already trapped in parishes that often are inflexible, if not hostile to any social dynamic.

My guess is that often ministers are too cautious, and that there are significant numbers of persons in their congregations hungry for some progressive word. It has often been my experience in guest shots that there are those who say, "Why haven't we heard this before?"

I love the church--as I have often said--but these days I wonder if we are finally at a point of being serious about insisting that new forms of religious life must replace a system which can no longer activate a radical call to social transformation. Maybe, among my own denominational crowd, Disciples Justice Action Network (DJAN) can provide us with some clues to the development of a few of these new forms.

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

Charles Bayer

"YES WE CAN"

Nobody needs to prove that there is a ton of bad news around these days. There have been times when I have turned off the evening news within two minutes after turning it on. Eight years of very bad stuff, disasters piled on disasters, a national belligerency that has soured most of the world, the attempt to legitimize torture, an approaching ecological catastrophy that is unmet because even to address it will cost a bunch of fat cats--and the rest of us--real money. And who wants to save the world of tomorrow if money is to be made today? I have a great deal of sympathy with the man who said, "All my life they called me a pessimist, but they were wrong. Things are turning far worse than I predicted." There is plenty to lament about.

BUT---BUT---BUT something is happening all over the nation that has been unexpected by those of us who have been around for a few decades. There is a new generation which is not ready to settle for the rot. If this earthquake has coalesced around a new political hero, the dynamic goes far deeper than Senator Obama. It is a shaking far down in the soul of America, a rumbling, a new rhythm which pulses in the heart 0f a new generation. If you have not yet tuned in to U-Tube's bit called "YES WE CAN," do it! Young people are shaking things up, and those of us who want to find a slice of hope can see and hear it.

For years we have heard that that students are interested in nothing more than getting through school so they can cash in on American's riches. They just want to make money, and resist anyone or anything that gets in their way. If that might have been true as short time as three years go, the rumbling is increasingly clear that the well-documented selfishness is being called into question.

My prejudice has convinced me that much of the mature thinking lies with liberals, but there are a number of conservatives I listen to with great appreciation. One of them is David Gergan. I heard him speak the other evening at a nearby college. He described the earthquake that is profoundly moving a new generation of younger people--most in their early 20s. He is convinced that they are willing to give themselves, and a solid chunk of their lives, to fleshing out a new dream. He described hundred of recent college graduates who have taken a year or two to teach in neglected public schools--and some of them have stayed with it. They know that with privilege comes responsibility, and that affirmation, they realize, will cost them dearly.

Anderson Cooper has given significant public attention to the hundreds of young people who instead of wandering drunk on some southern beach, will be spending their Spring breaks building homes in New Orleans.

While they realize there are violent groups out there who would like to hurt us, these new visionaries know that while rogue terrorist can create occasional trouble for us, they cannot bring us down---but the ecological crisis can.

Gergan also maintained that this new generation is profoundly spiritual, not that they are religious--religion has most often let them down--but that they are looking for values other than how much they can consume and who can claw their way to the top.

Now, we who still cling to a liberal religious, church-centered world may want them to see that we have have been right all along, but my guess is we have squandered that opportunity. While we still try to discern whether or not we can fully accept homosexuals--and come to no conclusion lest some of our people be offended, they are no longer ready to baby-sit a church focused on its own survival. While we don't really want to talk about this ungodly war because we must hold together those who hate it and those who support it, they have found an ethic that no longer waits for us finish our prayers. If we do get them into one of our churches for a service or a program, they most often leave believing that we are more part of the problem than we are part of the answer.

When the public hears about Christians who babble about why it might be this and it might be that, these younger adults run in the other direction. We have nothing to say to them--or at least they think so. Much of American Christianity has been seduced by a political right-wing cabal, and the progressive church has been far too busy covering its own backside even to talk about it, let alone to take on the seducers and those who have been seduced.

I'm ready to watch the sunrise of hope and to support from the sidelines those who say "YES WE CAN" and are putting their lives on the line for that dream.

But that's just my opinion. Feel free to share yours. . . .

Charles Bayer

candwbayer@verizon.net

Here goes my new blog

All,
Here goes a new effort. I'm not sure how it will turn out, and if you happen across this blog, I'd be interested in your reaction. The dialog we might create about the matters discussed here will sharpen what I think. I never really know much without listening carefully. I want to listen to you.

While this not an official DJAN effort, as one of the founders of the DISCIPLES JUSTICE ACTION NETWORK, I am passionate about what this decade-old organization has done, is doing and will do. I have known many of you over the years--and you have known me, so much of what I say will probably be familiar.

Since returning from teaching theology in Australia, Wendy and I have lived at Pilgrim Place in Claremont, California. I do some teaching for the Disciples Seminary Foundation, and am employed about a quarter time for Progressive Christians Uniting--a peace, justice, ecumenical body. I put out a hard hitting "Alert" for them, and will add you to the list is you send your e-mail address to me at cbayer@pcu-la.org.

Now let's get down to business!

I am a churchman. I have served it all my life. I believe in it. A number of years ago I published a book called, Hope for the Mainline Church. The last chapter was really dedicated to a young minister--a Timothy. My advice to him was "love the church." Over the years of his ministry he encountered plenty of reasons NOT to love the church. He is now out of the ministry and out of the church. He does not love it.

While that grieves me, I understand it. I have had, and still do, a love/hate relationship with the church. I still hope that God will find new ways to use it as a forerunner of what Jesus called the Commonwealth (Kingdom--Reign) of God. But hope is not optimism, and my confidence in what I find in so many congregations, and in our extra-congregational bodies--Regions and the what we have called the "General manifestation,"-- is modest in the extreme.

We'll get to those issues as we go along in these blogs. But briefly, and with particular relation to the Disciples of Christ: I find congregations here and there which are open, clearly identified with God's call for justice, peace, equity and inclusion. However, I find many more just fixated on trying to survive, and as such have lost any edge which says, "It is the world, not the church, which should be at the heart of our message."

I talk to ministers who know what is asked of faithful people in our day, who never say anything about GLBT (gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender) inclusion or the disaster of the war against Iraq or much anything else, because they tell me, "I have lost too many people already, and I can't afford to offend those who are left. So I must try to be a pastor and not to raise issues I really can't to anything about." So they sit quietly in the middle of the boat watching it slowly sink.

I see much the same thing among the work of our Regions, and even in the Office of the General Minister and President. Now Sharon Watkins has an impossible job, with not enough resources and with a denomination that is not sure what it is to be or do. It seems to me that she--and the rest of the church--has a brace of options. She can either see her job as trying to hold onto what is left of a troubled church, or pointing in a hard new direction. For now it seems that she has mainly taken the first option, while John Thomas of the United Church of Christ--at some risk--has said: "Folks, here is a direction we need to go, and if there are those ready to go with me, come along."

So much for that. I will not spend much time in denominational or other church gymnastics. I am far more concerned about what is going on outside our ecclesial cocoons--and so to a couple of those larger issues in the next entries to this blog. But for now that's enough of an introduction.

I will end these blogs as I did editorials I did on the nightly ABC news in St. Joseph, Missouri: 'But that's just my opinion.' So please feel free to share yours with me and with others reading this blog.

Charles Bayer

DON'T GIVE UP ON THE CHRISTIAN FAITH

It is important to affirm the roots of faith. I am a Christian because of the stories, myths, metaphors images, and hopeful dreams which have come to me and therefore define who I am. At heart, these stories are shaped by the life and ministry of Jesus--his story. And Jesus was a story teller.

Every religion has its metaphors. They are the only way anyone can approach the Mystery to which they simply point. They are not proof, but only evidences of that which cannot be proved.

When religious people forget that their holy stories are only ways to approach the divine Mystery, and assume they are literal, historic, scientific facts, the rest of the world tends to be in trouble.

My despair about Christian fundamentalism is the same as my despair about fundamentalisms of any religion--or any economic political, nationalistic air-tight orthodoxy. The belief that the myths of one's tradition are true, and everybody else's only dangerous fantasy, continues to plague an already troubled world. Fundamentalist Christianity, Islam and Judaism, while growing out of many of the same stories, foul the nest when any of their adherents take them literally, and they become matters of doctrine.

Ed Bacon, Rector of All Saint Church in Pasadena, recently said, "Faith is what you are willing to live for. Doctrine is what you are willing to kill for."

Progressives--and I have never been fond of that designation--are committed to a faith growing out of stories, which may point to the truth, but do not define it. These stories are the ship, not the cargo. Their basic use is to transport the cargo from one place to another. To worship the ship is idolatry.

To defend our truth as absolute makes everyone else an enemy, so we support wars against "them". We defend our homes against "them" with firearms. We kill "them" with capital punishment. We legislate our superiority against "them" by manipulating the tax code in our interest. We call "them" heretics or infidels, deviants, unclean, and unrighteous. And we have doctrines and texts to prove how right we are.

Authentic faith grows out of hearing stories of love, inclusion, forgiveness, generosity, justice, compassion for what they are. Jesus not only told stories. but also lived them out. To follow Jesus means to spread our arms as wide as he spread his. So the "them" become brothers and sisters to be embraced, not enemies to be defeat. The political and social implications are enormous!

I am not about to give up on Christian faith because it has been turned into a weapon against whomever the "them" of the moment happens to be. If our stories do not make us more loving, just, accepting and generous, then of what use are they? They are only the seeds of self-righteousness, bigotry and violence.