Archive: A Response from Mr. Jessup

David Jessup sent the following reply to Bishop Roy Nichols in response to the special bulletin prepared by UM Communications containing Bishop Nichols’ statement and other criticism of the original Jessup document. We have printed this straightforward response word for word below, in hopes of bringing greater understanding to the issue.

I welcome Bishop Nichols’ call for a churchwide discussion of the theological premises that guide United Methodist support for political causes. Indeed, the Bishop seems to confirm my basic point when he acknowledges that the church “sometimes becomes involved with people whose blend of Marxist interpretation and Christian theology may be different from our own.” Unfortunately, that involvement goes well beyond intellectual inquiry and an exchange of views. In reviewing the theological rationale officially presented for such involvement, several questions come to mind:

1. While the ministry of Christ must be a ministry to all people in all countries, does it follow that our ministry “transcends the question of whether the political system is totalitarian or democratic”? Doesn’t our tradition of supporting the freedom of believers to build their own communities of worship require us to oppose those who seek to repress religion or transform it into an instrument of the state, be that state facist or Communist?
2. Because we are committed to the poor, does it follow that we must yield to those who, wrapping themselves in the robes of economic justice, seek to deny freedom of religion along with other basic human rights? And if we so yield, are we not acting like those false prophets who “attempted to justify evil and cover up inequity with religious ceremony.”?
3. Hasn’t the fashionable illusion of Communist concern for the economic and social well-being of its subjects been dispelled by the remarkable testimony of the millions of refugees who continue to flee these supposedly benevolent states?
4. Are we not forsaking our mission to the poor and the powerless when we fail to provide church resources to such efforts as a campaign to halt Soviet aggression in Afghanistan, a speaking tour for persecuted Cuban religious dissidents, or an international commission to investigate reports of Vietnamese-sponsored poison gas attacks in Laos, while instead giving money to groups that are uncritical of, or even sympathetic to, such regimes as these?

It is precisely my concern for the universality of our commitment to the oppressed that motivated my Preliminary Inquiry. Unfortunately, the official reply fails to demonstrate that my concern is unfounded. Instead it offers as “facts” a few generalized assertions that for the most part do not contradict my more detailed analysis of the actions and literature of each group receiving United Methodist funds.

For example, the Cuba Resource Center is said to “provide religious communication with an accurate description of the Cuban Revolution.” My paper analyzes the literature of the organization in order to show what the “communication” actually consists of:

Center coordinator Mary Lou Suhor praises the “new dignity” and “more human existence” of the Cuban people under Communism. She notes appreciation for the help of the Soviet Union, without which “Cuba could not have grown in domestic stability or international prestige. The island nation has been adopted as a symbol of revolutionary hope and courage by the third world, and has the long term support of a country [the USSR] which does not seek economic domination in the form of trade agreements.”

 

In 1973 the Cuba Resource Center charged that Church World Service was serving as “an instrument of U.S. foreign policy” because, among other things it “permitted and encouraged Cuban exiles to tell their side of the story in local churches, in the press, and so forth,” thereby creating a negative public view of the Cuban Revolution.

People who suspect that these extraordinary quotes are taken out of context need only read the literature of the Cuba Resource Center to discover for themselves the truly startling views contained therein.

It is far more important to build wider understanding of this subject among members of our church than it is to cut off a contribution to any particular organization or cause. For this reason I am requesting that Bishop Nichols send an updated version of my paper to the same people who have received the official reply. United Methodists can then compare the alternative interpretations and make up their own minds about whether the present pattern of political involvement is one they wish to continue. I would hope that those who take some satisfaction in “sometimes becoming involved with people whose blend of Marxist interpretation and Christian theology may be different from our own,” will permit Church resources to be used to bring about the constructive dialogue we all seek on the problems raised in my paper.

On the question of full disclosure, I am grateful for the official statement of policy that all agency expenditures and financial records are open to scrutiny and are available on request to any individual or congregation, particularly since that position was so vigorously opposed at the General Conference. Perhaps the five or six agencies that have never provided my local church with a detailed list of their financial contributions will now be willing to do so.

To those who argue that the proportion of church money going to political causes is insignificant, I would point out that the $442,000 represented the direct grants of only two of the agencies I contacted (the Women’s Division and the World Division), and that the potentially much greater amounts of in-kind contributions described in my paper, such as staff assistance to groups, as well as the costs of church-directed political programs, remain to be analyzed. A small proportion of a very large total still amounts to a significant sum of money, especially in the small but influential world of issue organizations. Besides, the moral question is whether any funds are warranted: would we justify a grant to the Ku Klux Klan on the grounds that the grant is small?

With the exception of grants to organizations that deny the legitimacy of the state of Israel, I have not disputed the lengthy arguments in the official reply purporting to show that the other grants in question meet the broad policy guidelines which are supposed to govern church contributions. What this suggests, however, is not that the organizations under discussion deserve our support, but that our guidelines and policy resolutions may be flawed, or too vague to be useful. If the debate over the grants helps generate a real debate over these policy resolutions and the world view they imply, my preliminary inquiry will have succeeded beyond all expectations.

In pursuing this debate, we all should heed the call to avoid extremist tactics. Such tactics include innuendoes that those of us seeking to reorient church political involvement are “right-wing extremists,” “McCarthyites,” or people without compassion or a vision of the future. For too long the fear of being labeled a “reactionary” has intimidated many church liberals and moderates who have been troubled by what they have seen. It is time to reassert that the idea of freedom is a core value of both the liberal and conservative traditions in our society; its compelling vision continues to inspire people the world over; its preservation and its growth are essential to the struggle for economic justice, racial equality, and to the elevation of spiritual life embodied in Christ’s mission.