logo

Letters
Cheers and Jeers

Responsibility of position
The recent actions of some of our prominent church leaders have prompted me to question whether some positions carry with them a certain loss of personal freedom. If one holds a high profile position in the United Methodist Church, does he or she have a responsibility to limit personal demonstrations of conviction to those supported by the Book of Discipline?

Bishop Joseph Sprague of the Chicago area and Jim Winkler, General Secretary of the General Board of Church and Society, have been very visible in the headlines lately. Both have been involved in acts of civil disobedience in protest of the war in Iraq. While the Discipline states that “we believe war is incompatible with the teachings and example of Christ,” it also acknowledges “that, when peaceful alternatives have failed, the force of arms may be preferable to unchecked aggression, tyranny, and genocide.” These leaders are using their positions to gain publicity for their “cause.” By failing to mention the alternative “just war” position also supported by the Discipline, they are publicizing a United Methodist stance that is only partially true. The General Board of Church and Society issued a statement during the first days of war that was supportive of all viewpoints and participants while still expressing grief over the situation. It seems that the very public demonstrations of Bishop Sprague and Jim Winkler, although stemming from their heartfelt convictions, undermine the work of the Board and confuse or anger faithful United Methodists who feel differently.

Only the General Conference speaks for the entire denomination. However, when high profile United Methodist leaders are so visible in the news, it is easy to make the assumption that they are representing all of us. With great power and visibility come great responsibility to the organization and people being represented.

Marget Sikes
North Georgia Conference
Director on General Board of Church and Society

Pre-emptive strikes
Peter R. McGuire’s research on John Wesley (“John Wesley & just war,” May/June 2003) seems accurate to his character. Those who try to make Wesley a pacifist have an uphill battle ahead of them.

Where I find fault with McGuire and all of our talk about a just war is related to his rather simplistic understanding of sin. He proposed that all individuals and nations sin, and if we wait until we’ve reached perfection, we’ll have waited too long to provide an adequate defense against the threatening evil of our time. September 11 is an all-inclusive rallying cry. It justifies a broad shift in the way we conduct foreign policy. It is sufficient cause to make the quantum leap from “just war” to “pre-emptive strikes.” Such a position is only tenable by projecting all evil outside the inner circle of the good. Today it’s called patriotism, and it is a slippery slope. I think it was Reinhold Niebuhr who warned us about an “immoral society.” The argument goes that what is not okay for an individual is somehow acceptable for nations in order to preserve the greater good. Perhaps there are situations that would allow us to make that case, but we need to be very careful when we go there.

I think our nation understood that before September 11. I think the average American lacked faith that we could effectively instigate a regime change that we are now committed to in Iraq. After Vietnam, Americans doubted the motivation of our political leaders. Back then, would we have been concerned that most of the rest of the world didn’t believe we are the good guys anymore? In other words, our best arguments for the invasion of Iraq sounded more imperialistic and self-serving than as a national defense against an impending threat to our security.

Personally, I hope we find weapons of mass destruction that come somewhere close to the threat described by Secretary of State Powell, and were alluded to in McGuire’s article. I hope we find plans to rebuild those weapons discovered in the first Gulf War and some sign that terrorist activities against the United States were in the works. One wonders if it is really that easy to hide 100 tons of chemical agent (which was said to be a conservative estimate). If they are not found, how will the administration sell the notion that Iraq posed a real and immediate threat to our national security? Perhaps “sell” is the wrong word. As a Christian community, aren’t we the ones seeking the truth? Other nations point out how obvious it is to them that our military industrial complex has very close ties to the executive and legislative branches of our government. We have a military budget greater than the rest of the world’s combined! Iraq has the second largest oil field reserve in the world. So, it may be just a little tempting to want to play that military card first, rather than as a last resort. It seems to me that a Christian perspective has to deal with mixed motivation. We call it sin. And we can not skip over it without risking our nation’s soul.

I do believe in just war theory. But no just war theory I’ve ever read about would recognize the notion of pre-emptive strikes, except under the most unusual of circumstances. So, from a Christian perspective, how do we align ourselves with those who have gone before us in the best sense of our tradition? At what point does our justification become rationalization? For those of us who take sin seriously, how can we not look at what Niebuhr tried to tell us about becoming an immoral society? Personally, I think of Bonhoeffer in a Nazi prison listening to his fellow Christians singing hymns in church a few blocks away, and I wonder how far we can go to rationalize the threat posed by Middle Eastern countries with a lot of oil and a differing world view? We’re not there, by any stretch of the imagination, but, what safeguards do we have in our newly expanded understanding of just war?

John W. Corbin
Mangum First UM Church
Mangum, Oklahoma

Taking exception
I found Peter R. McGuire’s article “John Wesley & just war” to be a balanced and comprehensive theological summary on the subject. I am a United Methodist who supports both our president and our military. I have never been in the military, but have many relatives who have. However, my family’s Christian heritage is both Mennonite and Church of the Brethren, both historically pacifist denominations. With that in mind, I must go on and take exception to the approach of both Good News and the UM bishops regarding this subject.

First, our bishops are not practicing pacifism, but anti-war activism. There is a big difference. True pacifism is an individual’s decision or an established denominational doctrine (like that of the Mennonites). Pacifism does not take to the streets or use the political system to force its views on the general public. Christ and his Apostles set the example for pacifism, since they never spoke a word of condemnation specifically directed to the Roman Army or the Roman Empire, which both brutalized their country and executed them. Unfortunately, I’m concerned that in reality the intention of our bishops is anti-Bush activism, since I don’t recall such an outcry when we bombed the Balkans a few years previous during a Democratic administration.

As far as Good News is concerned, you have made a judgment that this was a just war, without all the facts. It will take many years and history to determine if this was a just war. I suspect your motives are as political as the bishops’—with your patriotism compromising your good judgment. History shows that the combination of patriotism and Christianity has often resulted in senseless bloodshed. History has also shown that good motives and patriotism do not always equate to justice when it comes to war.

To emphasize this second point I refer to Wesley himself. John Wesley was a patriotic Englishmen who supported his king. He believed the British army was fighting a just war against the king’s rebellious colonies. From Wesley’s perspective he was right. It was a war that was fought over taxes that were in pennies (tea tax was 3 cents a pound), and whose purpose was to pay for the previous French & Indian War. Much of the tyranny was in response to our growing rebellion, and taxation without representation is a shallow argument if you consider that today Puerto Ricans pay federal income tax, yet have no federal representation in Congress. So when you look at the facts of our own Revolution, the injustice the colonists perceived is not backed up by the facts. Yet in the end, Wesley was wrong, because history has shown that our Independence was indeed a godsend to both the world and Christianity. So the point to be made is that a just war is a matter of perspective, which is then time tested by history.

The bottom line is that the apostle Paul called us to abide in faith, hope, and love, and wars just or otherwise abide in none of these. I believe it is in the best interest of the Church to keep its focus on its mission, leave politics to others, and let history determine the justice of wars.

William B. Thomas
Johnstown, Pennsylvania

Get a life!
I continue to be amazed that you all continue, as a very small minority of Methodism, to believe that you are all right all the time. Today I am proud to know of those in our denomination who were able to afford to run public ads against the Good News folks. You deserve the same as you dish out in your own publication.

Isn’t it great that we can live in America and express our differences and that we have people like Joe Sprague who are willing to stretch us to new thinking, right or wrong? Isn’t it great to be a Methodist and know that Jesus comes to us for our own lives and that the denomination is not the end all but the beginning of some?

You guys ought to get a life and get out and preach the gospel of Jesus Christ instead of weeping and gnashing your teeth at those who do. Get a real life, become pastors again if you ever were.

Jerry Dunn
Sunfield UM Church
DuQuoin, Illinois

God and man
To give the headline “God and man in the oval office” above an article and picture of President George W. Bush should offend all orthodox Christians. That is because the phrase, “God and man” is one meant in Christian speech to refer specifically to God incarnate among us—Jesus Christ. I don’t say this just to be glib or score a rhetorical point. I say it for a more serious reason. This publication styles itself the defender of orthodoxy among Methodists. Well and good. Yet the strategy you've taken to do that is to defend and extol the president and the armed forces, and to dismiss patronizingly a christologically rigorous vision of non-violence (the reference on page 26 to the Sermon on the Mount as a condemnation of “Christian initiated violence” would be funny if it weren’t so serious. To turn the other cheek when slapped by another is hardly refusal to initiate-it is refusal to reciprocate). Your apologetic strategy leads to the praise of Caesar and the dismissal of Jesus’ actual words. It is well to ask which Lord—which claimant to the title “God and man” you are serving.

James D. Byassee
Shady Grove UM Church
Providence, North Carolina

Aligning causes
I have read your magazine with interest over the years. I agree with many of your concerns about orthodoxy in the Christian Church. I am concerned that in the rush to support “conservative” Christianity you have occasionally made unwarranted assumptions about opponents’ “conservative” political positions. The war in Iraq is a prime example. The “liberal” move in one sense is to change just war theology to make allowances for preemption. This is not a matter of who accepts the authority of Scripture and who does not. This is a matter of interpretation of Scripture and ethics. Aligning the cause of orthodoxy with cultural conservatism can be dangerous and misleading. The pope is not a liberal, nor a pacifist, yet he seriously critiqued the shift from wars of self-defense to a war of preemption. The evangelical church has found itself used (sometimes against its will and sometimes with consent) to prop up such things as segregation, United States involvement in Vietnam, first-strike nuclear capability, balanced budgets, tax cuts, etc. I fear we cut off our nose to spite our face. Paul urged the church to use caution when dealing with disputable matters. Every political movement wants to be baptized and borrow legitimacy from the church. We need to give our blessings carefully.

Lewis Archer
Via e-mail

 

Military ministry
Let me first say thank you for you coverage of ministry in the military. I served in the Army as a chaplain’s assistant for nearly nine years in peacetime, as well as in Desert Shield and Desert Storm. I am very proud of my service and think of the chaplain’s ministry within the military as a reflection of Christ’s call to “Follow Me.”

I am also proud of the manner in which Good News has covered those who minister to the troops. It does take a great amount of fortitude and spiritual strength to do this specialized ministry. I applaud your efforts of educating and supporting those who support our troops.

Micheal Tidd
Second Lieutenant
Civil Air Patrol
First UM Church
McDonald, Pennsylvania

A wonderful response
What a wonderful response to the Supervisory Team’s statement in regard to the complaint against Bishop Sprague. You have reasonably, forcefully, and effectively challenged the official response from the Council of Bishops. You appear to be far more reasonable and rational in your arguments, and that’s because you are right.

The Supervisory Team used the smoke screen of trying to taint those critical of Bishop Sprague with violating confidentiality. What a sham. Bishop Sprague’s comments opened him up to public scrutiny and rebuke. We have a serious crisis of leadership in the UM Church. Thank you for your careful and deliberate response. It was a masterpiece!

Mark Mildren
First UM Church
West Plains, Missouri



Click here to send your response plus the title of this article to us at Good News.

Good News | 308 East Main St. | P.O. Box 150 | Wilmore, KY 40390 | 859-858-4661 | 1-800-487-7784
info@goodnewsmag.org | About Us | ©2007 Good News magazine