The bishops of the United Methodist Church have long thought it part of their calling to tell the federal government what to do. This week, the subject at hand was the Iraq war, and about how we need to get out:
Whereas, the Council of Bishops of the United Methodist Church, meeting Nov. 9 at Lake Junaluska, N.C., is committed to make disciples of Jesus Christ for the transformation of the world; and
Whereas, the Lord Jesus Christ, the Prince of Peace, calls his followers to be peacemakers (Matt. 5:9); and
Whereas, “We believe war is incompatible with the teachings and example of Christ” (Book of Discipline 2004, Par. 165.C); and
Whereas, the cost of the war in Iraq as of Nov. 7, 2007 has been the lives of 3,843 members of the U.S. military, 171 members of the United Kingdom military, 132 members of the other Coalition military, 28,385 U.S. military wounded, and the lives of at least 76,241 Iraqi civilians; and
Whereas the war in Iraq has displaced 2 million persons and forced another 2 million persons into refugee status;
Whereas, every day the war continues more soldiers and innocent civilians are killed with no end in sight to the violence, bloodshed and carnage;
This is where they start to step in it. Their first two statements are fine, the third is a quote from the Discipline (though by no means the whole story, since the relevant section doesn’t establish pacifism as Methodist doctrine or practice), the fourth and fifth a recitation of information that should have been sourced in the case of the Iraqi numbers, but can be granted. The last is a prudential political judgment that purports to see into the future. The bishops have no special talent for either political judgment or prophecy of the futuristic variety, and in fact their belief is very much open to question, given the gains that have been made on the ground in recent months. At this point, they are simply channeling the Democratic Party’s Congressional leadership.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE COUNCIL OF BISHOPS calls on the President and Congress of the United States and the leaders of all the nations in the Coalition Forces:
•To begin immediately a safe and full withdrawal of all military personnel from Iraq, with no additional troops deployed;
If they’d read the news before writing this, they’d know that withdrawal of troops is scheduled to begin before the end of the year. The “full withdrawal” is their way of saying, “who cares about the Iraqis?”, who have asked for a continued American presence both to help with the internal struggle and to ward off Iran. The “no additional troops deployed” is their way of saying that their ordination gives them insight into the proper use of military forces that the folks in the Pentagon don’t have. Oh, and I think they missed someone–shouldn’t they also have called on the Iranians to pull their Revolutionary Guard personnel and al-Qaeda to pull their foreign jihadis out of Iraq as well? Or are the people who are actually perpetuating the violence to get a free pass, while those who are trying to prevent it are called upon to get out of Dodge? And here I thought people such as the bishops had such pull with Tehran.
• To declare that there will be no permanent military bases in Iraq;
Why? This strikes me as simple isolationism at work, since there’s no accounting either for what Iraqis want or believe they need in the way of American help.
• To increase support for veterans of the Iraq war and all wars;
I’ve got no qualms about this, though it isn’t at all clear what they mean by it–it certainly sounds good, however.
• To initiate and give strong support to a plan for the reconstruction of Iraq, with high priority given to the humanitarian and social needs of the Iraqi people, such as health care, education and housing;
At this point they are channeling Rowan Williams, who also seems to think that we’ve not done anything to rebuild an Iraqi society shattered by 30 years of totalitarianism. We have actually poured almost $30 billion into Iraq, not all of it well-used certainly (this is, after all, the federal government we’re talking about), but hardly a drop in the bucket, and there’s more coming. Of course, one could argue that there hasn’t been much of a plan for the rebuilding, so detailed proposals rather than planks from a political platform might be helpful.
FURTHER, THE COUNCIL OF BISHOPS calls United Methodist people throughout the world:
• To pray for peace and to have regular prayer vigils for congregations and communities;
• To care for all impacted by the war, including combatants and noncombatants by honoring the dead, healing the wounded and calling for the end of the war;
One doesn’t “honor the dead” by running out on the job before it’s been finished. If the bishops really wanted to honor them, they would not be calling for their sacrifices to have been in vain. Instead, they might be calling for the freedom and safety of the Iraqi people to be secured, their political processes respected, and their country not abandoned to the depredations of Iran and its terrorist allies, as we are in the process of doing.
• To be peacemakers by word and deed that we may be called the children of God.
And to be peacemakers in a fallen world sometimes requires that arms be taken up by the civil authorities. If the bishops wish to call United Methodists to pacifism, that is certainly their right, and I would support them doing so as a witness to the peace that passes all understanding that is the world’s ultimate hope. But if they want to be Quakers in fancy robes, calling on United Methodists to take up pacifism as a political strategy, I suspect they will be–and should be–awfully lonely in their “prophetic” stance.
November 29, 2007 at 1:34 am
The first and foremost reason that religion should stay out of politics is their support of their respective governments in going to war. This is closely followed by the second reason which is calling for their governments to surrender in war.
The Bible cannot be used by a nation (other than ancient Israel) as a ruling document because a government is always going to have make hard decisions for its protection that will be incompatible with some of its tenets.
If Jesus didn’t counsel the Romans on how to rule, good luck finding the correct answer about how the United States should deal with Iraq/Iran/Palestine/Israel.
November 29, 2007 at 11:47 am
Having once been a member (and pastor) of a church, the synods of which routinely issued such resolutions, I now find such actions meaningless and empty to the point of being embarrassing.
I think it is fine if individual Christians wish to express such sentiments to the president or members of congress. It demeans the church of Jesus Christ when bodies of believers issue such statements, even if factual.
November 29, 2007 at 3:57 pm
I’m wary about saying that the church has no duty or obligation (or at least a right) to speak into matters of the state in the public square.
I wonder what might be some affirmative guidelines for such discourse?
November 29, 2007 at 7:51 pm
Jeff, they certainly have the right legally. What is your scriptural reasoning on their duty or obligation to do so?
November 30, 2007 at 2:11 am
I don’t see the duty or obligation for the church to seek political policies.
There are, certainly, issues in which Christians do have obligations – that might be construed as political. But it is an error to claim biblical support for the vast majority of policy statements advocated by various church organizations. I’m also not particularly sympathetic to the reasoning that permits certain organizations to pretend to represent their members when their members views are different than those of officials. I do not know to what degree this happens in the UMC, but it is a very common phenomenon in most Mainline denominations. Yes, in UMC thinking, the bishops have a right to speak, but it is dishonest to pretend they speak for their members. And it is insupportable in most instances to pretend they speak for God – whether they label their mutterings as prophetic or not.
November 30, 2007 at 9:33 am
Based on my nine years in the UMC, I can tell you that leadership speaks “on behalf of the membership” a great deal without having any idea what the membership thinks. It’s an across-the-board mainline (and too often evangelical) phenomenon.
November 30, 2007 at 12:11 pm
Was it, therefore, wrong for the Presbyterian Church in America to make a statement about women in combat?
Please do not understand me to be supportive of the content of the above-referenced speech. However, I do think it appropriate that church bodies speak to issues of political importance.
I am wary of silencing the church so that it speaks only to private and internal matters. In other words let’s not object to the fact that these churches are speaking (by referring to them as “secretary of state wannabees”), lets object to the content of their speech.
Otherwise are you not precluding statements from evangelical churches on matters political with which you might agree? To be consistent you might be forced to refers to the General Assembly of the PCA as “secretary of defense wannabees.”
November 30, 2007 at 12:48 pm
By that reasoning, Will, any elected official is dishonest because there is never an instance when a representative represents in accordance with those she is representing.
November 30, 2007 at 12:57 pm
Otherwise are you not precluding statements from evangelical churches on matters political with which you might agree?
Yes. What is your scriptural reasoning for the church’s “duty or obligation to speak into matters of the state in the public square”?
November 30, 2007 at 1:23 pm
Jeff: Just to clarify, I refer to the bishops as “secretaries of state wannabees” because of their habit of intoning on matters on which they have no more expertise or authority than I or any person on the street, and yet do so with and attitude that they should be listened to because they wear purple shirts. When they speak outside the arena of the church’s competence, as they do in demanding a particular set of policies (say, their call for the US to not have any bases in Iraq) for no other reason than that their politics demand them, then they are SoSWs. As for the PCA, I believe the same would apply if, instead of speaking on the morality of putting women in combat, they were to decry the use of women as fighter pilots rather than artillery gunners, I would agree with you whole-heartedly.
I am not “precluding statements” from any church body–from the UMC to NCC to NAE to PCA–on any subject that is within the field of the church’s competence. For instance, I have no problem with any of them talking about stewardship of creation, and hence global warming. I don’t hesitate to say where I think they’re wrong, but I haven’t objected to them doing so, unless they get into the realm of specific policy proposals, at which point they are also wandering far afield of their area of competence.
November 30, 2007 at 2:53 pm
David – Thanks for the clarification.
It sounds like your saying that it is appropriate for a church body to speak as to the morality or the war in Iraq, for example, but not give “specific policy proposals” with regard to that conflict. However, if the church decides that the war is immoral, does it not then follow that certain policy changes (i.e., calling for the withdrawal of troops) would be warranted?
[Note: this is a hypothetical and does not represent my personal view].
November 30, 2007 at 2:53 pm
sorry, “you’re”
November 30, 2007 at 6:44 pm
Jeff – while sometimes in our system that is the case – it is an evidence of corruption.
Elected officials should not be regularly advocating positions the people who elected them find repugnant. In the case I mentioned the churches in question have majorities that oppose the very views advocated by their ‘leaders’. These maintain their influence by corrupt means – either by lying to their members or, in cases where representative governance is appropriate to that denomination, actively subverting the clear will of the majority.
November 30, 2007 at 7:04 pm
Jeff: Possibly, though I prefer that the church do rigorous theological and ethical analysis, even drawing a conclusion based on it, but then leave the policy consequences of that analysis to the discernment of its members.