Archive: Praise the Lord and Raise the Taxes

The Rise of the Religious Left

By Steve Beard

“I’ve been so criticized by the religious right community, its good to have religious people who understand what I’m trying to do.” —President Bill Clinton to a group of liberal religious leaders

Just as there is a Religious Right, so there is a Religious Left—and President Clinton could not be more pleased. As a movement, the Religious Left has attracted very little media attention. Consequently, the phrase is rarely heard. That may be explainable in that high-profile religious liberals such as the Rev. Jesse Jackson, Gov. Mario Cuomo, and First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton are more well-known for their secular accomplishments than for their spiritual underpinnings.

Nevertheless, the Religious Left is led by a sophisticated network of “peace and justice” advocates from within “mainline” Protestantism. In his critically-acclaimed book, Culture Wars: The Struggle to Define America, sociologist James Davidson Hunter describes members of the Religious Left as the “progressives” whose “moral authority tends to be defined by the spirit of the modem age, a spirit of rationalism and subjectivism.” This group translates historic beliefs “according to the prevailing assumptions of contemporary life,” he says. Hunter describes their counterparts on the right as the “orthodox” who are committed to “external, definable, and transcendent authority.”

By whatever definition, the Religious Left is alive and well. After spending 12 long years wandering in the political desert, they have finally stumbled upon the promised land: The Clinton White House. The 1992 election resurrected and rescued a movement that had arguably been relegated to obscurity during the Reagan-Bush era.

It was remarked not long ago that “mainline” Protestantism had simply become “oldline” and was quickly becoming a “sideline” religious movement because of its staggering drop in membership and waning cultural influence. No longer sidelined, the Religious Left’s domestic agenda is now shared by the political establishment: tax-and-spend economics, abortion rights, homosexual rights, sex education and condom distribution in the public schools.

In the public policy arena, United Methodism is solely represented by the Religious Left. With regard to controversial social issues, there is virtually never an occasion when comments made by UM leaders reflect the feelings of moderates or conservatives. The scandal within our church is not that the liberal social and political witness is espoused. Our crisis is that liberalism is the only vision espoused in the name of United Methodism. In a denomination of political diversity, why is it that only the Left has a tithe-subsidized voice?

A 1990 survey conducted by the General Council on Ministries (GCOM) confirmed that the people in the pews are far more conservative than the denominational executives who speak on their behalf. According to the official results, a whopping 69 percent of United Methodist laity described themselves as conservative. The results showed conclusively that we are a conservative denomination led by liberals.

Only the General Conference speaks for United Methodism. With seeming regularity, however, it appears as if the Rev. Thom White Wolf Fassett, chief executive of the General Board of Church and Society (GBCS), is the only one behind the microphone. Unfortunately, those outside our church are under the mistaken impression that all United Methodists share his enthusiasm for liberal politics.

In recent comments, the Rev. Fassett claimed that the board’s “credibility is questioned when we speak on society’s issues out of the depths of the policy positions of the United Methodist Church.” He went on to say, “We have been told that we have no right to engage in the criticism of decisions enacted through the political process when, in fact, we are enjoined so to do by the very mandates of our church and the New Testament.”

No responsible critic has questioned the board’s “right” to “engage in the criticism of decisions enacted through the political process.” Many have questioned, however, whether or not the board accurately represents the United Methodist Church. Let’s be very clear about what is being said. No one is asking to silence the Rev. Fassett or the liberals at our Board of Church and Society. Instead, it seems only reasonable that our bishops, agencies, and media outlets recognize and utilize United Methodism’s rich tapestry of opinion rather than one predictably liberal voice.

Let’s look at a few specifics.

Economics

After analyzing President Clinton’s 1993 budget plan of “progressive taxes and program cuts,” the Rev. Fassett said that it “would move the country toward the long-stated public-policy goals of the United Methodist Church.” He even went so far to say that “most United Methodists will rally to the opportunity to give more so that local communities and the nation will benefit.”

“We have long expected our members to tithe to the church,” he said, “and this budget represents a tiny down payment toward the tithe of justice and love” (Luke 11:42). There is a deeply significant difference between the tithe and the tax. Unfortunately, the Rev. Fassett fails to make the distinction.

UM executives were also universally opposed to the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and joined with other U.S. religious leaders by placing an advertisement in the Nov. 8 edition of Roll Call, a Capitol Hill newspaper, that read: “Reject This NAFTA.” Among the signers were the Rev. Fassett; the Rev. Randolph Nugent, general secretary of the General Board of Global Ministries (GBGM); Joyce Sohl, deputy general secretary of the GBGM’s Women’s Division; and Bishop Joseph Yeakel, GBCS’s president.

Recognizing the diversity within the UM Church, who speaks for those who did not support the Clinton economic plan? What about those who supported NAFTA?

Abortion

The Rev. Fassett recently claimed that the board’s “position on maintaining full reproductive health care in any new national health-care policy has been used to falsely accuse the church of supporting abortion.”

Most concerned United Methodists are now aware that the Board of Church and Society and the Women’s Division of the GBGM are members of what was formerly known as the Religious Coalition for Abortion Rights (RCAR). Its new name is the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice (RCRC) but their philosophy is the same: “We oppose any laws and regulations that, by dictating one position, force women to conform to other Americans’ religious belief.” This position effectively undercuts religiously motivated argumentation for anything. Would that be defensible when speaking of the civil rights movement, abolition, or the peace movement?

RCRC is also a firm supporter of federally-funded abortions and the radical Freedom of Choice Act. Likewise, it rejects even the modest laws for parental involvement, waiting periods, and informed consent. These are some of the reasons why many United Methodists believe that the Board of Church and Society supports abortion. Injudicious entanglements with fringe organizations are most certainly a contributing factor in the declining credibility of the UM Church’s social witness.

In a full-page May 18 New York Times advertisement, the Women’s Division was listed as a participating organization in a national call-in campaign to Congress demanding that abortion coverage be included in health care legislation.

Who speaks for the vast UM constituency who do not support abortion on demand, let alone having it federally-funded?

Homosexuality

Shortly after the 1992 election, Bishop Melvin G. Talbert, secretary of the UM Council of Bishops, cosigned a letter to then President-elect Clinton commending him for his “courageous commitment to end injustice” by lifting the military ban on homosexuals which was called “intolerable.”

The Rev. Fassett voiced his disapproval of the compromise policy by saying that President Clinton’s plan “continues the practice of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation” and that it “disappointed those who believe in the protection of human and civil rights for all.”

Who speaks for United Methodists who do support the military ban on practicing homosexuals?

Sex education and condoms

The Rev. Fassett supported the controversial proposal of federally-funded condom advertisements on television. “I urge United Methodists to view the announcements as an opportunity for families to discuss the important issues of HIV/AIDS in the context of religious values,” he said.

One of the rising stars in the ranks of the Religious Left is Surgeon General Jocelyn Elders, a prominent United Methodist. Her bravado is legendary. “If I could be the ‘condom queen’ and get every young person who is engaged in sex to use a condom in the United States, I would wear a crown on my head with a condom on it,” she said recently. Elders is also a sex education zealot who wishes to have training begin in kindergarten. “We taught them what to do in the front seat [of a car],” she says, “Now it’s time to teach them what to do in the back seat.”

Recognizing the diversity within the UM Church, who speaks for United Methodists who do not support government-sponsored condom ads, let alone allowing Dr. Elders to teach our children what to do in the back seat of a car?

Christian Social Action

The voice of the Religious Left within United Methodism is Christian Social Action—a publication of the UM Board of Church and Society. Only the most liberal politicians are highlighted in their pages: Rep. Don Edwards (D-CA), Rep. Ronald V. Dellums (D-CA), Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA), and Rep. Patricia Schroeder (D-CO). Are we to believe that not one moderate is worthy of our attention? Why not call upon UM legislators such as Sen. Sam Nunn (D-GA), Sen. Robert Dole (R-KS), Rep. Lee Hamilton (D-IN), or Sen. Richard Lugar (R-IN)?

With paranoid regularity, Christian Social Action publishes major articles devoted to such topics as: “Religious Right Rediscovered: Coalitions of right-wing groups are still working hard to impose a narrow orthodoxy on American life.” (The phrase “left-wing groups” is non-existent.) John M. Swomley, professor emeritus of social ethics at St. Paul School of Theology, is unsurpassed in his uncharitable venom. His attacks are directed toward Roman Catholics and fundamentalists whom he believes are to be found under every bed engaged in a “theocratic” conspiracy. He claims that conservative Christians are “opposed to separation of church and state, including the free exercise of religion as it applies to groups other than their own. They oppose equal rights for women, resist the right of personal and marital privacy, advocate censorship, and in general foster an atmosphere of hostility to various economic and civil rights.” This kind of dime-store characterization is commonplace.

The “U.N. Report” is supposed to serve as a insider’s look into the United Nations. Instead, it is a convenient place to bash diplomats from the Reagan Administration such as Ambassadors Richard Schifter and Jeanne Kirkpatrick. Caricatures in a recent issue include: “Ms. Kirkpatrick is a neoconservative political scientist who sees the United Nations as a place where the United States can beat up the rest of the world.”

Unfortunately, Christian Social Action does not appear to be the ethical voice of United Methodists working toward a more just society through the power of the Holy Spirit. Instead, it often ridicules and maligns traditional Christian social ethics. None of this would be much of concern if the magazine were simply a journal of opinion. However, it is supposed to represent all United Methodists.

It goes without saying that United Methodism is not monolithic in its social agenda, neither is it particularly partisan. There are, however, roughly 70 percent of the people of our church whose conservative worldview is never articulated by our intoxicatingly politically correct bureaucracy. These members remain voiceless and alienated within their own church. They feel utterly disenfranchised.

In a denomination that brags about pluralism, diversity, and inclusion, United Methodism’s leadership speaks with a unified liberal voice while the people in the pews are left to blush with embarrassment and roll their eyes in disbelief.

Steve Beard is the executive editor of Good News magazine and a member of the steering committee of United Methodists for Faith and Freedom, a committee of the Institute on Religion and Democracy.