Archive: Touching a Tender Nerve

by Charles W. Keysor, Editor, Good News Magazine

In the Sept/Oct 1980 issue (p. 26-39), we reported on the effort of Mr. David Jessup, a UM layman, to question grants of money made by our denomination to various political groups. Some interesting things have happened as a result of the so-called “Jessup Report.”

• Newscope, the denomination’s official newsletter, devoted over four pages of its Sept. 19, 1980, issue to listing Jessup’s “charges,” together with responses from denominational officials and / or spokespersons for some of the organizations named by Mr. Jessup. Newscope also published follow-up stories on Oct. 10, 1980, and Oct. 24, 1980.
• The influential Texas Methodist/ UM Reporter published articles in its issues of Sept. 26, 1980, and Oct. 31, 1980.
• Council of Bishops’ President Roy Nichols, Rye, NY, issued an official statement.
• The Associated Press syndicated nationwide a short news story.
• UM Communications prepared and mailed a six-page “white paper” to all UM clergy. (A copy may be obtained from your pastor, or by writing UM Communications, 601 W. Riverview Avenue, Dayton, OH 45406.)
• The Reader’s Digest is reported to be working on an article.

Why all the fuss?

Obviously, Mr. Jessup has touched a tender ecclesiastical nerve. He has brought to the surface some surprising specifics. These tend to confirm a widening suspicion: that some of the money put into local church’s and UM Women’s offering plates is being given to various groups whose purposes are political, with a strong tilt toward the Left. (See also “Our Washington Connection,” Good News July/Aug. 1978, p. 41.)

The Jessup allegations take on further significance in light of the 1980 General Conference twice refusing to forbid the spending of UM money for Marxist/totalitarian causes. (See Good News, May/June 1980, p. I-45 – I-46.)

High denominational officials have reacted with surprising defensiveness to Mr. Jessup’s report. The “white paper” has been sent at church expense to all ordained UM clergy. Meanwhile, thoughtful United Methodists need to look carefully at the official response to Mr. Jessup.

1. There is no denial that the money was given to organizations named by Mr. Jessup. Thus, the basic accuracy of his most important claim has not been challenged.

2. The grants named by Mr. Jessup are defended as harmonizing with policies set or affirmed by General Conference. This justification seems largely correct. It points to the great and growing gap between opposite understandings of the nature and mission of the church. Those who don’t accept the “white paper’s” reasoning are inferenced as being disloyal, blind to world realities, and dangerous extremists of the Frankensteinian New Right.

Many UMs believe there is an authority even higher than General Conference and the UM Discipline. It is the fully-reliable Word of God. Many such United Methodists insist that this higher authority does not justify giving large amounts of church money to political pressure groups, either of the Left or the Right.

Then how did those holding one political viewpoint (the Left) gain control of the denomination’s political process, including even General Conference? How have they imposed their view upon the whole church? By means of superior political skill and long-term effort. They have gained privileged positions within the church bureaucracy and thus they control the UM “system,” using it adroitly to promulgate their particular understanding of Christianity, to the virtual exclusion of other understandings.

A case in point is the resolutions adopted by General Conference. (You can find them in the 1980 Book of Resolutions, available from the UM Publishing House.) Most of these resolutions are subject to many different interpretations. Church bureaucrats make their own interpretation, then use their power to freeze these as THE policy of our church. They claim they are simply implementing the expressed will of General Conference, and imply that anyone who disagrees is disloyal to the church.

In light of this longstanding practice, General Conference should stop passing so many vague resolutions. Why continue providing our bureaucratic elite with carte blanche to manipulate the church?

But among Christians, might does not necessarily make right. Within an admittedly pluralistic church, the sheer possession of political power does not necessarily justify its use to spend church money for purposes alien to the faith and feelings of many church members. Christian charity, let alone common sense, argue against making these political grants because: 1) there is no clear, explicit mandate in Scripture to require this and 2) such grants are divisive in the extreme, making more difficult unity and harmony within the Body of Christ.

The “white paper” conveys the impression that the official viewpoint is the only correct one. To disagree with our boards and agencies, the paper strongly suggests, is to conform to the world, to turn away from the hard demands of the Gospel (as they interpret it).

Here is the all-important point. Does the official rationale for making political grants of church money square with the self-evident truths of Scripture, particularly the New Testament record? If so, they are right. If not, they, not their challengers, have neglected to declare the “whole Gospel.”

3. The basic theological assumptions used to justify those political grants dangerously distort the Gospel. Rather than drawing a theology out of what Scripture plainly says, the “white paper” imposes its own prior agenda. Scripture is interpreted questionably to support the political grants. This, of course, is the familiar distortion of “liberation theology” in its various manifestations. (See Good News for March/ April 1980, p. 18-30.)

A typical example appears on the opening page of the UM Communications document: “… the prophets (and Jesus) did not hesitate to confront the rich and powerful with the demands of social justice. …” This seems to be the underlying premise by which political funding is officially justified.

Some hard questions must be asked at this point. Exactly where in the New Testament do we see Jesus doing or advocating this? Does it happen often enough and clearly enough to justify this as first priority for followers of Jesus Christ?

It is up to those who accept the suppositions of the UMC “white paper” to prove their theory from the Gospel record of Jesus’ words and deeds. Where, exactly, does Jesus teach that His Church should expend its energy, its time, and its money correcting the ills of society by political activism?

Both Jesus and the Old Testament prophets regard fairness and justice as evidences that God’s will is being lived out in the world. People who “act justly,” “love mercy,” and “walk humbly with your God” (Micah 6:8) are the ones who have correctly heard and heeded God’s true message. And they have authentic faith, which leads them to conform their lives to the requirements of a holy and just God. Thus social justice, as the Bible sees it, is a symptom and consequence of authentic faith, not an end in itself. Scripture’s overall balance will not allow social justice—or any other single aspect of the Gospel—to become the predominate, single Christian emphasis. To do this is to confuse the part with the whole.

Let it be emphatically said and understood that social justice is an indispensable part of the Gospel. I am only arguing against the current tendency to give social justice disproportionate importance for Christians and the church.

Why has our church, at official levels especially, swallowed the lopsided view that Christianity consists primarily of political activism? In part, it is a reaction to the failure of many evangelicals, past and present, to adequately appreciate and emphasize the social justice dimension of the Gospel. As a corrective, the Social Gospel movement arose in the latter 1800s. It has floated on a deepening tide of liberalism and humanism for most of this present century. And now we are plagued by the so-called “liberation theology,” which carries the earlier forms of un-Biblical emphasis to their logical conclusion: total secularization. Self-evident Biblical values and priorities are ignored or remolded selectively to constitute religious justification for naked political activity. People who think this way regard giving church money to political advocacy groups as natural as water running downhill. If you accept this basic assumption, then the UM Communications “white paper,” of course, makes sense.

On the other hand, however, if you reject this assumption, as do many United Methodists, then the granting of church money to political groups is NOT acceptable.

4. The grants named by Mr. Jessup are considered a trivial amount. The UM Communications “white paper” says on page 5, “… The amount expended for the alleged ‘Marxist’ organizations is .0036 of the total—about one-third of one percent. … ”

The inference is that a mere $442,000 is really nothing to be upset about! Few local churches would think in these terms. It reminds me of the attitude of a famous US Senator who, when asked about heavy government spending, remarked, “Well, a billion here and a billion there pretty soon adds up to big money.”

Imagine what your church might do with even a small portion of that $442,000. What if it could be invested for Christ in ways designated by your Administrative Board?

5. Church leaders circulated only their rebuttal. They did not provide UM pastors an opportunity to see also Mr. Jessup’s document. If the matter was important enough to merit sending a special message to all pastors, it would seem only fair to have included the Jessup Report itself, or perhaps the summary that appeared in Good News. At least pastors should have been informed where they could obtain a copy of Mr. Jessup’s complete document.

Can anyone intelligently evaluate what Mr. Jessup is saying without seeing his paper? Mailing out only the rebuttal leaves the impression that church leaders don’t really trust pastors to think for themselves.

6. It is strongly claimed that denominational financial procedures are in the open. 

Mr. Jessup has not claimed otherwise. His concern, rather, is with the kind of organizations that have received church money.

Bishop Nichols, in his defense of the church agencies, says, ” … at every point there is full accountability …. ” (p. 6). The bishop is encouraging us to trust the UM system. If anyone should experience less than “full accountability” the thing to do is inform Bishop Nichols (United Methodist Center, 210 Boston Post Road Rye, NY 10580). He will want to know if his confidence has been misplaced.

7. The “white paper” attempts to smear those who disagree. Pages 2 and 5 suggest that any who doubt the wisdom of these grants are McCarthyistic reactionaries … out of touch with the modern world … dangerously conformed to capitalistic western culture … and wanting to turn the clock back to simpler, happier days of yore.

Here is a clear revelation of arrogant elitism. Our boards and agencies tend to view themselves as “the cutting edge,” while the rest of us are regarded as reactionaries. We are intelligent enough to write checks. But otherwise, our backward attitudes seriously impede the progress of the Great Society which is, for the secularist, a substitute for the City of God.

8. A subtle but important qualification made by Bishop Nichols has been largely ignored. Stating the need for Christians to “… risk association with those labeled ‘sinners’…,” he makes the very important point that the church should do this “… in order to convince and convert...” (emphasis added).

This, of course, is what Jesus did. He associated freely with sinners to convince them of their need to repent and to convert them to the Kingdom of God. Such convincing and converting is the real reason for the Church to exist.

However, the question must be asked: Are the political grants reported by Mr. Jessup given with the purpose of “convincing and converting” to a Christian point of view? Or, is the purpose of these gifts to strengthen these groups and support them in what they are doing?

Few would object to any grants given by the church if the real purpose was “to convince and convert” people to saving faith in Jesus Christ. But honesty compels the observation that this likelihood is remote. Judge for yourself. How much salvation through the blood of Jesus Christ is evident in the official publications: engage/social action (Church & Society); New World Outlook (Global Ministries) or response (UM Women)? I hope you will obtain and study a copy of the UM Church “white paper.”

I hope you will also obtain and study a copy of the Jessup Report. Compare these carefully. Then take your Bible. See whether it sustains the idea that church money should be given to secular political groups and causes of the kind identified by Mr. Jessup and admitted by the official church.