untiedmethodist.com

Did Wesley boot out "bad" Methodists?

John the Methodist (left) asked: "Didn't Wesley routinely boot out people who failed to live up to his exacting moral standards?"

He asked this question as part of the ongoing discussion about the question:  "Should pastors have the right to pick and choose their members?"  In a comment, Michael had argued that "our Wesleyan theology has a perfectly fine way of explaining why we extend membership without a holiness test. ...  we Methodists believe in going on to perfection! We're not expected to have our 'stuff' together before we are eligible to receive God's grace. In such a case, it would no longer be grace."

John asked his question in response to this viewpoint, obviously implying Methodism's founder John Wesley did regularly oust people who did not meet his moral expectations.

I was embarrassed to realize that I know very little about how Methodism's founder John Wesley regulated membership in Methodist societies. But I knew whom to ask.

The Rev. Dr. Charles Yrigoyen Jr. (pictured left) has served as the general secretary of the General Commission on Archives and History of the United Methodist Church for the past 24 years. (He will be retiring this coming December.) I asked him if Wesley established rules for membership in Methodist societies. I caught him away from his office, so he did not have access to his library but he was able to answer anyway. He said:

Wesley did set rules for society membership.  To join the society, one was expected to "flee the wrath to come."  One was also expected to keep the General Rules (still printed in the Book of Discipline) and attend both class meeting and society meeting weekly. 

Admission was dependent upon having  a class ticket. The class tickets were usually renewed quarterly and gave the bearer admission to the society meeting, love feasts, and watchnights.  Arrangements were made for "seekers" (our term) to attend society meeting, but it was expected that after a few meetings the person would be ready to accept the rules and take an active part in class and society meetings by attending. 

Methodists were also expected to support their parish churches by attending, receiving the sacraments, and offering other evidences of their Christian faith.  To my knowledge, Wesley did not set up additional rules for the Methodists regarding their congregational life in Anglican churches. 

At first, Wesley himself enforced the rules and excluded men and women from society membership for such things as lying, smuggling, physical abuse of others, etc.  Keeping the General Rules was a manifestation of holy living which was the goal of the Methodist movement.

Rules for the preachers included, of course, the same General Rules as for all other Methodists.  Preachers were expected to teach and preach Methodist doctrine and to keep the personal disciplines which were an important part of the early Methodist movement.   Preachers who did not observe these disciplines, and became ineffective for one reason or another, were dismissed from the movement.  Both John and Charles Wesley actively winnowed the field to exclude those who did not measure up to what they considered the faithful Christian life and witness.  The preachers, as well as others, were expected to be committed to holiness of heart and life and to move on in this holiness (loving God and neighbor with all they were and had) until by divine grace they were made perfect in love, i.e., love for God and neighbor became the basic affection and motive of their lives.

Of course, the Methodist societies were not churches. We do not know if Wesley would have enforced the same rules for membership in the Church of England as he did for the societies.

Still, for those of us who have not read them lately, and especially for those who might want to boot out "bad" Methodists today, I thought it might be helpful to reprint John Wesley's General Rules to see what behaviors he felt violated holy living.

THE GENERAL RULES

There is only one condition previously required of those who desire admission into these societies: "a desire to flee from the wrath to come, and to be saved from their sins." But wherever this is really fixed in the soul it will be shown by its fruits.

It is therefore expected of all who continue therein that they should continue to evidence their desire of salvation,

First: By doing no harm, by avoiding evil of every kind, especially that which is most generally practiced, such as:

The taking of the name of God in vain.

The profaning the day of the Lord, either by doing ordinary work therein or by buying or selling.

Drunkenness: buying or selling spirituous liquors, or drinking them, unless in cases of extreme necessity.

Slave-holding; buying or selling slaves.

Fighting, quarreling, brawling, brother going to law with brother; returning evil for evil, or railing for railing; the using many words in buying or selling.

The buying or selling goods that have not paid the duty.

The giving or taking things on usury—i.e., unlawful interest.

Uncharitable or unprofitable conversation; particularly speaking evil of magistrates or of ministers.

Doing to others as we would not they should do unto us.

Doing what we know is not for the glory of God, as:

The putting on of gold and costly apparel.

The taking such diversions as cannot be used in the name of the Lord Jesus.

The singing those songs, or reading those books, which do not tend to the knowledge or love of God.

Softness and needless self-indulgence.

Laying up treasure upon earth.

Borrowing without a probability of paying; or taking up goods without a probability of paying for them.

It is expected of all who continue in these societies that they should continue to evidence their desire of salvation,

Secondly: By doing good; by being in every kind merciful after their power; as they have opportunity, doing good of every possible sort, and, as far as possible, to all men:

To their bodies, of the ability which God giveth, by giving food to the hungry, by clothing the naked, by visiting or helping them that are sick or in prison.

To their souls, by instructing, reproving, or exhorting all we have any intercourse with; trampling under foot that enthusiastic doctrine that "we are not to do good unless our hearts be free to it."

By doing good, especially to them that are of the household of faith or groaning so to be; employing them preferably to others; buying one of another, helping each other in business, and so much the more because the world will love its own and them only.

By all possible diligence and frugality, that the gospel be not blamed.

By running with patience the race which is set before them, denying themselves, and taking up their cross daily; submitting to bear the reproach of Christ, to be as the filth and offscouring of the world; and looking that men should say all manner of evil of them falsely, for the Lord's sake.

It is expected of all who desire to continue in these societies that they should continue to evidence their desire of salvation,

Thirdly: By attending upon all the ordinances of God; such are:

The public worship of God.

The ministry of the Word, either read or expounded.

The Supper of the Lord.

Family and private prayer.

Searching the Scriptures.

Fasting or abstinence.

These are the General Rules of our societies; all of which we are taught of God to observe, even in his written Word, which is the only rule, and the sufficient rule, both of our faith and practice. And all these we know his Spirit writes on truly awakened hearts. If there be any among us who observe them not, who habitually break any of them, let it be known unto them who watch over that soul as they who must give an account. We will admonish him of the error of his ways. We will bear with him for a season. But then, if he repent not, he hath no more place among us. We have delivered our own souls.

Jesus at 15th and P -- An E-interview with Jana Meyer about day laborers

In the heart of Washington, D.C., a block away from Foundry United Methodist Church, Latino  men gather early in the morning every day --seven days a week--  looking for a day’s work. 

Jana Meyer, Foundry Church’s minister of mission, (pictured below right) has organized a group of volunteers to take the men  bottled water and sandwiches and to build relationships with them. As we approach Labor Day, Untied Methodist asked Jana to educate us about the day laborers she has come to know through this new ministry.

I’ve walked past the day laborers a block from the church almost every day for three years. Sometimes there have been 30 or 40 of them. I’ve nodded hello and wondered what their lives are like but done little more. What motivated you to reach out to them?

I first met some of them during our Friday walk-in mission, and then became aware that they were waiting for work at 15th and P streets.   I heard some of their stories at the walk-in mission and I was interested in their situation, particularly since they meet only a block away from the church.

What are their lives like?

Very hard. Many of them are sending money back home to their families, or paying back the money they paid to get here.  Most of them simply want to work.  Few of them get work every day.  Many wait all morning without getting work.  When they do get work, they may not get paid.  Many are injured on the job, and employers often take no responsibility.  If the worker has not managed to get all the employer's information, which often happens, it will be difficult if not impossible for them to pursue their right to worker's compensation, or to unpaid salary.  The workers also endure separation from their families and loneliness.  Sometimes this can lead to substance abuse.   Some are homeless; others are residents in Mt. Pleasant and Columbia Heights.  For many, the corner is also their community. 

Who hires them? I assume somebody must or they wouldn’t keep coming back every day. How much do they get paid? Are they treated well?

Usually they are hired by individuals.  Sometimes this can be a subcontractor.  Many do painting.  Some do construction, or moving, or clean-up work.  Some of them do skilled work.

The pay varies.  The workers have recently tried to collectively ask for a minimum of $10/hour; however some workers, particularly newcomers, break that out of need and go for less.   The more skilled the worker is, the more he will ask for. 

Not getting paid is a big problem.  Other times, the employer will promise one wage and pay something less.  Many of the workers have talked about the lack of respect and even verbal abuse they must endure.  Some have told of being insulted with racist remarks throughout their work.

You have told me that there are other gathering places for day laborers in the Washington area, some that attract groups much larger than ours. Is this a national phenomenon? How widespread is it? Is it always Hispanic men?

Abel Valenzuela Jr. of the Center for the Study of Urban Poverty at UCLA has done quite a bit of research about day laborers.  According  to him, temporary day workers have been known to exist in the United States at least since 1834. There are day labor sites throughout the country. In Kentucky in one town where I worked, for example, much of the day labor was agricultural.

A research study in July 2004 led by UCLA interviewed 476 day laborers at 16 sites in the larger area.  Abel Valenzuela and Ana Luz Gonzalez recently released some of the initial reports of this study, entitled "In Pursuit of the American Dream: Day Labor in the Greater Washington, D.C. Region"  In that study, about 94 percent of the day laborers were Latino -- 67 percent were Central American, 14% percent were Mexican, and 12 percent were South American.

In addition to the bottled water and your presence (which is very important, I think), have you and our volunteers been able to help make their lives better?

I think it is too soon to ask that question, and that it is a question for the workers themselves to answer.  We provide information about places like the Employment Justice Center Worker's clinic that can help them protect their rights.  Other organizations such as Neighbors Consejo have been involved with this group for years, and know many of the men, and have provided support and counseling.  We have tried to work with different organizations to support the workers' own leadership and organizing.  My hope is that our ministry will support the workers efforts to improve their own lives, but that is not an easy process.

What can the church learn from them?

The day laborers  teach us what it truly means to put your life in God's hands.  Most of them have left everything, risking their lives to come to an unknown place to seek a better future for themselves and their families.   They work dangerous jobs without health insurance and without adequate safety equipment.  By listening to their stories, we can begin to learn about the realities of injustice and survival in our community, particularly for immigrant workers.   We also learn that we cannot generalize about their lives, because they are a complex and diverse group of people.

What, if anything, should our denominations and others be doing nationally on behalf of day laborers?

I think denominations can play a critical role by helping to frame the day labor discussion in terms of respect for the work and contributions of our neighbors.  We have seen the local debate on day laborers turn into a channel for national anti-immigrant sentiment. We can help counter these negative and ill-informed stereotypes by expressing support for the positive contributions of day laborers to our local community.   

For example, according to the UCLA study 50percent of day laborers attended church, and worked in their own community.  One of the workers at the 15th and P site is the vice-president of his church youth group.  He works with over 30 young people.  Day laborers are family oriented, sending an average of $3,000 per year to their families.   

Denominations also can play a critical role in strongly advocating for immigration reform that supports a path to legalization, workers rights, and family reunification.   They can support immigration as positive for our country and for our community.

For more information on ways to support day laborers, churches can contact the National Day Laborer Organizing Network.

How have you sensed the presence of Christ in this ministry?

One of the day laborers' name is Jesus (a common name for men in Spanish), and his name for me is a constant reminder that Christ is very present at 15th and P.  In fact, I often feel I have to leave the church and walk to 15th and P to encounter Christ, even if it is not always an easy place to be.  I know that if Jesus were physically with us today, he would spend time at 15th and P,  where people struggle every day for survival, for dignity and for justice.

United Methodism and church-sect tension

The church-sect distinction, first introduced by sociologist Max Weber a century ago, still remains a helpful concept today for understanding the shape that Christian movements take. Church and sect are ideal types, rather than pure empirical descriptions, and no denomination or Christian movement is purely one or another but some combination of the two. 

Yet, denominations and Christian movements will tend more toward one type or the other. The distinction between church and sect can help us understand some of the tension within a body like the United Methodism Church which has some members who subconsciously think of it as a church and others who want it to be a sect.

This church-sect tension is particularly stressful within United Methodism, I think. The Methodist movement was born as a sect within the Church of England but, after John Wesley's death, it quickly became a church. Charles Wesley was a churchperson (Samuel even more so) and a sectarian at the same time.

Here are a few differences between churches and sects as ideal types:

1. Weber's original core difference between a church and a sect is that you tend to be born into a church while you make a decision to join a sect. Many people think of themselves as birthright Catholics or Methodists, part of a church family. Even if you were not born into a particular church, you can choose to join a church family and be a valued and loved member of the family, but sects place greater emphasis on the decision to become a believer and to commit yourself to a movement. You can join a church, but you need to convert to become a member of a sect. (Remember these are ideal types for the purpose of comparison; not empirical descriptions.)

2. A church will tend to want to embrace all its sons and daughters, and thus will emphasize grace and acceptance. A sect, which is more concerned with purity and discipline, will stress law, right belief,  and right living.  A church is for the masses. A sect is for the elite and truly committed. (These and other distinctions are well summarized by Mirslav Volf in an article entitled "Soft Difference," although it should be noted that Volf does not fully agree with Weber's analysis.)

3. A church will tend to be more comfortable with the "world" and more willing to accommodate the "world."  Churches tend be be reformist. A sect will see the "world" as a temptation to be resisted. Sects will tend to be either isolationists --distancing themselves from the world-- or revolutionaries, insisting on radical change.

4. A church will emphasize the sacraments, education, and confirmation. A sect will tend to emphasize conversion, religious experience,  and commitment.

5. A church will tend to be middle-of-the-road, conventional, and bland. A sect will tend toward the right or the left and will be passionate,  exciting, and gripping.

6. A church will celebrate holidays and rites of passages. It will emphasize God's dependability. A sect will emphasize Jesus' radical call to discipleship and the need to renew our commitment again and again.

7. A church will tend to emphasize God the Creator or the full Trinity. A sect will usually  emphasize either the second or third person of the Trinity.

I believe United Methodism is a church and that we need to act like a church, rather than a sect. I also believe, however, that we need to nurture and support sects within our church. When people experience the need for a deeper level of commitment and a more passionate engagement with the divine, they should not have to leave United Methodism to find it. This is why movements like Walk to Emmaus, Volunteers in Mission, the Order of St. Luke, and the Methodist Federation for Social Action are so important. People who are looking for a deeper, more committed, more passionate experience should be able to find it within the United Methodist Church.

But those of us within United Methodism who are sectarians, or who lean this way, should not expect to turn the denomination into our sect. I spoke to a United Methodist pastor from the Midwest once who told me his 4,000-member church included both a chapter of Affirmation for gay and lesbian members and a Promise Keepers chapter. I asked him how they got along together. He told me that each of the groups was very important and meaningful for its members, but neither one seemed to worry much about the existence of the other. Isn't this the way it should be?

Mixed-up feelings

During a recent conversation with someone about the Lake Junaluska controversy, there was suddenly a catch in her voice and a pause. "They hate us," she said.

"They hate us," she said a second time.

I wanted to argue with her. I wanted to say they don't hate you, they just don't understand, but I didn't. Instead I tried to listen to hear what it feels like to have people be offended by your very presence somewhere.

I have very mixed feelings about this discussion that I have been a part of -- a discussion that I have helped intensify by publishing the letter distributed by the Institute on Religion and Democracy (IRD) and then interviews with Mark Tooley and Troy Plummer. I worry that this discussion only increases the pain.

There are two groups of people I especially worry about. Most of all, I worry about gay and lesbian United Methodists who have struggled through to a place of self-acceptance and self-affirmation in spite of what the church in our ignorance has said about  them. I would rather they not have to read things I write or the IRD letter and some of the comments that this discussion elicits. I feel bad about being part of a discussion at all ...  as though we had the right to discuss anybody's validity.

I feel sullied by participating in a discussion full of generalities about a group of people's "sexual activities." We had made these kinds of  hurtful generalizations about other cultural and ethnic groups, and these discussions are wrong to even participate in-- we don't scrutinize other United Methodists this way -- but it also feels wrong not to challenge such generalizations.

I feel bad because the controversy over Lake Junaluska now threatens to turn a convocation where gay and lesbian United Methodists could safely worship, fellowship, and learn with other United Methodists who are trying to be welcoming  and understanding into an experience that may not feel as welcoming as it might have. Lake Junaluska represents a place of grace and community, closeness to God, and peace, for all of us. Some United Methodists are saying that the mere presence of  gay and lesbian people, and those of us seeking to help the church become more inclusive (although I doubt the presence of the rest of us is much of the problem),  will "tarnish" Lake Junaluska for them. It must be hard for gay and lesbian people to come to any conclusion other than "They hate us."

I have friends who have to escape the struggle from time to time. They go into hiding for a time for the sake of self-preservation. They try to avoid places where the acceptability of their very existence will be debated, as though they were an object, a thing,  rather than a child of God. I would not want anything I do to make the lives of these friends harder. For the rest of us this is a theoretical discussion. It is not the acceptability of our existence that is at stake. I hope folk tell us when our participation  in the struggle only makes things worse and harder. Forgive us when it does.

The other group I worry about are those United Methodists who have accepted the church's teachings about sexual orientation, and have chosen to live a heterosexual life when they suspect their orientation is otherwise.  Some  of these sisters and brothers have blessed me by sharing with me a glimpse of their struggle. It is not an easy road. This discussion makes their lives, which they are seeking to live for the sake of Christ as they understand him, more painful and difficult as well. I wish them no hurt either.

Someone like me feels the responsibility and need to speak out. Yet, this should not be about my need. It should be about liberation, understanding, and healing. When this gets to be more about our needs than these things, friends should gently tell us to keep our peace for a while.

No matter what our attitude or theological convictions are about these matters, all of us who are not gay need to remember that we are not talking about ideas, theories, and concepts but about people -- people who can hurt and despair.  I pray that my commitment to principles will never get in the way of the commandment to love my neighbor as myself. Whatever I do, I do not want to expose my gay and lesbian sisters and brothers to more pain.   

Convo will be "opportunity for healing" -- An E-Interview with RMN's Troy Plummer

The Rev. Troy Plummer is executive director of the Reconciling Ministries Network, the group that is planning the Hearts on Fire convocation being held Sept. 2-4 at Lake Junakuska. I have previously posted a letter about the convocation distributed by the Institute on Religion and Democracy (IRD) and an interview with Mark Tooley who heads up the IRD's UMAction. 

Rev. Plummer is very busy preparing for the conference so I appreciate his willingness to respond to these questions:

IRD refers to Hearts on Fire as a pro-homosexuality rally or jamboree. Do you agree with this description? How would you characterize it?

The Reconciling Ministries Network  affirms God’s love for persons of all sexual orientations and gender identities. Hearts on Fire is our biennial convocation, our eighth convocation since 1987. We hold them roughly every other year.

We held our convocation once before in the Southeastern Jurisdiction --at Emory University  in 1997 when our theme was "Come to the Table." Other convocations have been held at places like Augsburg College, George Washington University, North Texas State University, and the United Church of Rogers Park in Chicago.

Hearts on Fire will include  worship, Bible study, workshops,  and a bishops' plenary. Saturday the creator of the transformative Disciple Bible Study, Bishop Richard Wilke, will present a keynote address "Listening to the Spirit" based on Acts 15.

The Book of Acts shapes the event with Bible study led by Drs. Kah-Jin Jeffrey Kuan and Karen Oliveto; worship created by Dr. Heather Murray Elkins, Mark Miller and Bon-Jeong Koo; and preaching by Beth Stroud, Bishop Carcaño, Margaret Mallory, and James Preston.

The Rev. Gil Caldwell, co-convener of United Methodists of Color for a Fully Inclusive Church,  believes Hearts on Fire will be “an opportunity for healing both of the continuing wounds of racism and the wounds of prejudice against gay and lesbian families.”  This is a good description of the event.

Is it true that Hearts on Fire will not honor "Christian virtues such as chastity and faithfulness?"

I hope people read the section of our website that has to do with gay marriage. In my introduction to this resource, I talk about Linda and Elli who got married after 25 years of living together. They came to this decision after studying the Bible for nine months as part of a Disciple Bible Study group in their local United Methodist Church. This graceful revelation  came not from the very real experience of 25 years of love, or the love of four children and eight grandchildren, but from Bible study.

People ask me why we make a "fuss" about gay marriage. I say: The fuss is about living in honesty and loving in honesty. The fuss is about the fidelity and faithfulness of persons of same-sex orientation to their spouse and also to their family of faith. We not only advocate for and celebrate these values, we are asking our church to support their GLBT members in these values.

IRD has also said that "official United Methodist teaching about marriage and sex will NOT be presented at Hearts on Fire, except as a target for ridicule and condemnation."  Will church teachings about marriage be ridiculed at Hearts on Fire?

I hope everyone reads Dr. Tex Sample's essay about marriage on our website. Dr. Sample surveys the Christian teachings about marriage. Then he says this:

"The point is that marriage in the Christian tradition serves a number of ends: procreation, fidelity, sacrament/al, mutual support and companionship, mutual society, and loving companionship. What is striking is that all of these ends can be met by homosexual marriages, even the procreative end when the procreative end is understood as raising children for the Kingdom of God and not primarily as a function of nature [a biological function]. On these grounds, it is appropriate for gay and lesbian Christians to be married in the church, and it is not in violation of Scripture or tradition."

We take very seriously the church's teachings on marriage and study their meaning for our lives.

Are there any other statements in the IRD letter you would like to comment on?

I do not find it helpful to get into the cycle of debating spurious charges. We like to emphasize our positive attitude and positive hope for justice for GLBT people within the church.

We are using space at Lake Junaluska, because it is home. We have been baptized into the United Methodist Church as infants, adolescents, and adults --all of us-- persons of all sexual orientations and gender identities . We have promised to nurture all those who have been baptized in the faith.

We attended church camps like Lake Junaluska as children and youth, and our faith was nurtured there. As a life-long United Methodist who attended church camp each summer, I am delighted to be participating in worship and Bible study at a United Methodist camp. This is our home.

The real question is how the church could break the promise we make to nurture every baptized United Methodist in the faith and still remain faithful to Jesus? The conservative United Methodist  caucus Good News, as well as outside agitators like the Institute on Religion and Democracy and the American Family Association, continue to attempt to stir up inhospitality to lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender United Methodists. Such extremism ultimately fosters a climate of exclusion that violates the Gospel and harms the whole church.

These group's target of choice today is Lake Junaluska for faithfully living its mission to serve all United Methodists in continuing to make disciples for Jesus Christ. These groups' purpose is to intimidate those who have faithfully followed both the Gospel and United Methodist policies. The Book of Discipline is quite clear: All persons of The United Methodist Church, regardless to their age, race, gender or sexual orientation, have access to the ministries of our church.

Such attempts to intimidate only serve to illustrate the clear need for our ministries to continue to open hearts, to open minds, and to open doors. In the midst of manufactured controversy, RMN continues to rejoice in the many miracles we have already received in making our convocation possible.  Many good things have come even from this painful and wounding attack on Lake Junaluska and us. We are grateful for notes of support, for generosity, for new-found friends and allies, for Holy Spirit moments of awareness, connection, and grace.

Answers to blunt questions -- An E-interview with the IRD's Mark Tooley

I protested  a letter mailed by  the Institute on Religion and Democracy (IRD) to its mailing list because I felt it distorted and misrepresented the up-coming  Hearts on Fire convocation sponsored by the Reconciling Ministries Network (RMN). The event is scheduled to be held at Lake Junaluska Sept. 2-5. 

Several thoughtful conservatives whom I especially respect thought I was overreacting.   I decided to ask the IRD's Mark Tooley who wrote the letter  about some of my concerns, and to do so as directly and bluntly as possible. Although our paths cross only infrequently, I have had a cordial relationship with him for a number of years, and, in a former position, have even asked him for feedback on how he thought his constituency would react to certain issues. He has always treated me well on a personal level, and so I felt confident I could ask my questions directly and honestly. I appreciate his willingness to take the time to respond:   

Your use of language in talking about the Hearts on Fire convocation seems unusual. Instead of a convocation, you consistently refer to it as a "rally" or "jamboree," terms never used by the Reconciling Ministries Network. Why do you use the terms "rally" and "jamboree" to describe what will be a weekend of worship, workshops, and fellowship? Do you use these same terms when the Confessing Movement or other conservative groups have their national conference?

Reconciling and the other groups organizing Hearts on Fire are attempting to overturn United Methodist teachings on marriage and sex. The purpose of Hearts on Fire is to assist in this purpose.  I believe "rally" is a good term to describe the project. 

Neither "rally" nor "jamboree" is a pejorative term of itself.  It is what the rally is attempting to gather support for that makes the event negative or positive.  I do not think it would be unfair to describe the upcoming September conference of the Confessing Movement as a "rally" for United Methodists who subscribe to orthodox Christianity. 

The Reconciling Ministries Network (RMN) calls itself "a national grassroots organization." You call it a "lobby group." This also seems to be a strange term to apply to a church group. Why do you use it? Do you also consider your group, the Institute on Religion and Democracy (IRD), to be a lobby group? Do you refer to yourself this way in your publications?  Aren't you using language in a propandanistic way, rather than objectively?

RMN is lobbying for the United Methodist Church to change its historic position on homosexuality. It does this by endorsing legislation at church conventions and lobbying for that legislation.  That is what lobbying is.  "Lobbying" is a neutral term.  The question is, what is being lobbied for?  It is true that IRD also lobbies for legislation at church conventions.

You also refer to RMN and the conference as "pro-homosexuality." RMN, as I understand it, affirms inclusion and affirmation for people of all sexual orientations -- straight and gay. Why do you consider "pro-homosexuality" a fair descriptions?  Would it be fair to call IRD an anti-homosexuality group?

RMN affirms homosexuality as a divine gift.  It seems not unfair to say that RMN is pro-homosexuality.  IRD supports the current United Methodist Church stance, which is that homosexual behavior is wrong. You could call us "anti-homosexuality."  We prefer to emphasize the positive, which is that God created sex for man and woman within the context of lifelong marriage. 

You say that the convocation or "jamboree" will not honor "Christian values such as chastity and faithfulness." I have never heard anyone associated with RMN do anything but endorse and honor faithfulness. On what basis do you say that the conference will not honor the value of faithfulness?

Clearly RMN has a different understanding of faithfulness than do most United Methodists and orthodox Christians.  Faithfulness, in the orthodox understanding, means upholding the faith of the saints as passed down from the apostles across 2,000 years to the present day. Faithfulness means affirming the authority of God's Word, as found in Scripture, and attempting to live according to it.  I believe our debate is not ultimately about sex but about different understandings of God, revelation, Christ, and human nature.

My wife noticed that you say the convocation or "jamboree" will celebrate "the sexual revolution." This term, she says, has been commonly used to refer to the emergence of feminism, the use of birth control, the employment of women outside the home, and equal pay for women. She asked me to ask you what you mean by the term "sexual revolution," and whether you are opposed to equality for women and birth control.

By "sexual revolution," I refer to the movement that largely started in the 1960's that sought to separate sex from marriage and procreation. The sexual revolution has largely redefined sex as a form of recreation and bonding among consenting adults.  The affirmation of homosexual behavior is part of the sexual revolution.  IRD supports equality for women!  In many ways, it is women who have been victimized by the sexual revolution, which has helped to turn sex into a commodity.  IRD has never addressed the issue of birth control.

Here's the big question: What "wide range of exotic sexual activities" do you suppose will be endorsed at the conference? I have never heard of anything but loving committed relationships endorsed by the RMN. How can you justify using such inflammatory terms? Aren't you grossly exaggerating in order to polarize?

The inclusion of "transgender" issues and of a prominent speaker who has had a sex change operation suggests Hearts on Fire is about more than simply homosexuality.  I have attended RMN-endorsed events and read RMN-endorsed publications that endorsed polyamory.  I do not know if that topic will come up at Hearts on Fire.  The gay community seems to have different and evolving standards about what constitutes "loving committed relationships."  All of these understandings seem to be very different from the Jewish and Christian understanding of marriage, which is celibacy outside of marriage and monogamy within marriage.

How much money has come in in response to this letter?

I do not know yet.  We sent a letter to 100,000 people, and are just now receiving responses.  The letter cost over $20,000, I believe.  My hope is that the letter will pay for itself.

What else would you like us to know about your position on the Hearts on Fire convocation?

Hearts on Fire has aroused more response from United Methodists than any other issue during the nearly 12 years I have worked at IRD.  We started hearing from people about this event well before we had published anything about it.  Many United Methodists have personal memories about their own experiences at Lake Junaluska.  That Lake Junaluska would host an event that openly defies United Methodist and orthodox Christian teaching is therefore deeply upsetting to them.

My thanks to Mark Tooley for his responses to my questions. Be sure to also read IRD's report about Hearts on Fire: True, false, and strange.

"Young Adults are ready to set the world on fire for the cause of Christ" -- An e-interview with Young Adult Ministries Director Kevin Smalls

The Rev. B. Kevin Smalls is director of  young adult ministries for the Baltimore-Washington Conference of the United Methodist Church. Although he has been providing leadership in young adult ministries for a number of year in this conference, he began the work as a full-time associate council director in July.

UMConnection, the newspaper of the Baltimore-Washington Conference, wrote about his perspectives on young adult ministry in a recent article. Because Untied Methodist is particularly concerned about ministry with young adults (see here and here) and because Rev. Small's ministry has impressed us, we asked him if he would respond to some additional questions. He graciously agreed.

In the UMConnection article about young adult ministry, you said that one of the most important things for churches that want to minister to young adults to do is to make them laugh. Why?

Well, we don't want to make them laugh for comedy's  sake.  But laughter is often a barometer of how much people are enjoying themselves.  The point is that I think young adult ministry, or any ministry for that matter, should be of such where people are comfortable and where people enjoy themselves. 

In the young adult context, church is often a serious encounter.  There may be a joke or two in a sermon but, for the most part, the church experience is a serious one.  I think younger ones are freed up to learn in a place where they are comfortable enough to laugh. One of my rules is that in young adult ministry we must have a good time!  It is through each other that we experience the body of Christ.  When there is good fellowship, the body comes to life.

You also suggest that it is important to "provoke a slight confrontation about what they believe." It seems as though young adults want to be challenged in their beliefs. What does this tell us about this generation of young adults?

Yes, young adults are no longer satisfied with "it is this way, because it always has been this way."  Many in this generation have come to a point (as with most generations) where they question the belief systems of their parents and grandparents.  They want to know why we repeat an affirmation of faith.  They want to know why going to church every Sunday is important for faith development.  They wonder if it is really necessary to sing all these hymns every Sunday. 

Some other young adults, however, have gained a real appreciation for the traditions of the church,  but even in this appreciation there is a desire to know the foundational origins of what we do.

I believe that young adults should be challenged in their faith because this is where growth happens and it is where discipleship thrives.  The New Testament is centered around challenging questions, "Are you the one or shall we look for another?" "Who do people say that I am?" "Who do you say that I am?"  "Do you love me?" "Do you believe this?" These questions should be revisited in the context of young adult culture and life.

Why do you think there have been so few young adults entering ordained ministry in the United Methodist Church?

In our conference we have only 34 young adult pastors.  This is to say that well under 10 percent of our clergy are young adults.  Has God stopped calling teenagers or young adults into ministry?  I think not.  Clergy come from churches.  In our system, churches endorse candidates for ministry.  The church's role in providing the denomination with clergy is paramount. 

However, if our churches are having difficulty in relating to, caring for, making leaders out of, and engaging the community of young  adults,  it will be very difficult to discern a call to ordained ministry.  I believe that the call to ministry is gifted to persons in the local church.  If the local church does not provide a place of joy, challenge, and opportunity to young adults than they won't be able to hear the call that is beckoning them.

One of the truisms I have heard is that young adults don't want to serve on church committees or be involved in "church bureaucracy." Is this true? Are young adults unwilling to be involved in church leadership?

We have young adults who are interested in that sort of thing, for sure.  But, anyone can serve on a committee.  Anyone can take notes, organize information, and gather reports.  The unfortunate image that grows out of an ecclesiastical experience that only includes this kind of activity is that church is about business and not ministry.  The business of God is the restoration of God's people.   We have to begin the process of rediscovering what church really is. 

Church is not about the structure, while that is important.  Church is about the activity of God in the world.  I think anything less than that is irrelevant to many young adults.

I've also heard it said that young adults today place a particularly high value on authenticity and "being real." It is said they hate pretense or artificiality. Do you find this to be true?

I think this is true on a whole.  In hip-hop culture, for example, this is often the message that comes through in the music and in the movies.  There is a recurring theme to "be true to yourself" and "represent."

Is ethnicity a less pressing concern or issue for young adults today than previous generations? Is this generation more multicultural? Will they continue to tolerate a largely segregated church?

I think the issues for us are a bit different than previous generations.  Previous generations fought for racial equality and/or inequality.  Today, there is a global desire to reach and interact with people of different cultures.  It is always sad, however, when the differences of our cultures segregate us more than provide a place of mutual understanding. 

Since this conference is so blessed with diversity I think direct conversations among young adults about how to understand and appreciate our cultural expressions, practices, and interests will have to begin.  We have young adults from every walk of life among us.  We have Latino, Asian, Russian, African, African-American, European-American and many others.  We also have gay and lesbian issues and matters.  A large concern for us as a church will also have to be the growing classism that is happening in our cities.  The gap between the rich and the poorer is getting larger. In what ways can young adults be in community among all of these dynamics is a matter we must address. 

Are you optimistic about the ability of the United Methodist Church to reach young adults today? Why or why not?

I am always optimistic about a church that was effective enough to bring me to her God's altar to offer my life  for her Lord's sake.  If the gospel preached in our churches is good enough to enable me to give a resounding "yes!" to the real life that is only in Christ, then we can certainly be on fire about God's desire to reach so many others.  So, let's get this party started!

To get this party started, I am not wanting to blend culture with faith.  I want to help create a new culture of young adult believers and disciples.  I want us to show the world what it really means to be cool!  We can do this as a denomination and as a church.

How many other conference young adult coordinators are there in the United Methodist Church? Should other conferences be creating such a position?

Well, I don't have the exact number, but I have been in touch with many who are developing this type position.  Our conference is one of few that has a position specifically for young adult ministry.  There are other conference with young adult coordinators, but they are usually headed up by volunteers or laity.  These persons are sought after by the conference committees on nominations. 

I am not certain whether other conferences need a position like this one.  I think it is important for people to look at their context and from that context discover and determine what the needs are.  I am certain that young adults across the country are ready to set the world on fire for the cause of Christ.  However, I don't think many of them have received the memo that it is actually ok to do this by having fun, being challenged and having moments of enlightenment.  (Those are my three rules for young adult engagement.) 

The good news is God wants to hang out with us and you haven't seen an adventure, a good time, until God has showed you one!  God knows how to throw a party!

What is the best ways for local churches to be using your time and talents?

I am always a pastor.  I am a pastor to all young adults in our connection.  I am an assistant pastor to all of our pastors.  I am available, and hopefully I will be used, to get the party started through young adults in our churches, to encourage and support young adult ministries that are already developed in our churches, and to provide resources and consultation to young adults and congregations that are ready to rediscover what the life of the church can be in their congregational contexts.

What else should those of us in churches that want to reach young adults know?

As I conclude this interview I am also mourning the death of Brother Roger who started the Taize movement.  Brother Roger has attracted young people all over the world to his form of worship and contemplation.  I was reading an article about him in the Washington Post and it closed with the story of Pope Paul VI asking him what the key to the heart of the young is.  Brother Roger answered him, "We don't have a key and we never will." 

My suggestion is in doing young adult ministry there aren't any keys.  There are only contexts and needs.  Ministry is answering those needs, listening to those questions, and discovering the discipleship journey as you go!

Rev. Smalls is inviting young adults (18 to late-30s) in the churches of the Baltimore-Washington Conference to e-mail him to introduce themselves. He is requesting that young adults share with him their home church, a statement of their faith (challenges and victories), career or career vision, and birthday. He will reply to e-mails.

He would also like pastors to e-mail him to discuss young adult ministries in our local churches and on a  conference level.

Personal note: Much thanks to our friend Kevin for being willing to think about these questions and, most of all,  for his leadership in young adult ministries.

Here it is: IRD's "exotic sexual activities" letter

Here it is: the text of Mark Tooley's "exotic sexual activities" letter. (Tooley is pictured left.) It is an outrageous distortion of the spirit and content of the Hearts on Fire conference being sponsored by the Reconciling Ministries Network at Lake Junaluska Sept. 2-5. The letter concludes, of course, with an appeal for contributions. If several thousand people believe this malarkey and send the Institute on Religion and Democracy (IRD) $50 each or more, it will keep the bills paid at 1110 Vermont Ave., NW, for quite a while.

This letter is not posted on the IRD website. I assume IRD does not want everyone to see it. Someone who is on the IRD mailing list gave a copy of this letter to a pastor in North Carolina.  The pastor faxed it to me at my request. The letter is long but, please, take a few moments to read it and to see the kind of innuendo and manipulation IRD is willing to use to keep its base agitated. (I have attempted to replicate the use of bold type in the original letter.)

______________________________

July 2005
Dear United Methodist Friend,

Have you ever been to beautiful Lake Junaluska, the United Methodist retreat center in the mountains of Western North Carolina?

It is one of the jewels of our United Methodist connection.

But this September 2-5, the jewel of our church will be tarnished.

Lake Junaluska, which is owned by the relatively conservative Southeast Jurisdiction of our church, is renting itself out to "Hearts on Fire!," a huge jamboree for homosexual activists and their supporters.

Do you share my indignation over Lake Junaluska's decision to allow this?

Are you willing to contact Lake Junaluska directly to register your protest?

If so, please read on.

The four-day pro-homosexuality rally will be organized by Reconciling Congregations, the main liberal lobby group attempting to overturn the United Methodist Church's teachings on marriage and sexual ethics.

Now, this would be ALMOST excusable, if Lake Junaluska were required to rent itself out to any requesting organization. But its own internal standards require that the retreat center be rented only to groups compatible with the Discipline and Social Principles of United Methodism.

Of course, the Discipline and Social Principles of our church call homosexual practice "incompatible" with Christian teaching and affirm sex only within marriage.

For some odd reason, Lake Junaluska is choosing to ignore these essential teachings of our church, even though they've been debated and voted upon by our church for over 30 years now.

According to the Reconciling website's description of "Hearts on Fire," this event is for "United Methodists of all sexual orientations and gender identities that are called in faith to celebrate, ignite and empower the inclusive church of Jesus Christ."

Reconciling hopes to attract 400 United Methodists to the convocation. Participants will include seven bishops: Susan Morrison, Melvin Talbert, Joseph Sprague, Sally Dyck, John Schol, Minerva Carcano and Richard Wilke.

Other speakers will include openly lesbian United Methodist minister Beth Stroud, same-sex union convenor Karen Oliveto, and Erin Swenson, a Presbyterian minister who had a sex-change operation.

Reconciling has declared that "Hearts on Fire" will "include a "rainbow community of faithful lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and heterosexual disciples committed to justice!"

Needless to point out, the official United Methodist teaching about marriage and sex will NOT be presented at "Hearts on Fire," except as a target for ridicule and condemnation.

When I contacted her, the spokesperson for the Lake Junaluska Retreat Center said that the center sometimes rents to secular organizations but has turned away groups deemed to be at odds with  United Methodist stances.

According to Lake Junaluska's guidelines, "Groups using our facilities should have a mission compatible with Lake Junaluska Assembly and The United Methodist Church, its Discipline and Social Principles."

When I asked the spokesperson for comment about  Lake Junaluska's decision to rent to a group that decidedly disagrees with our church's standards, she replied:

"We believe we are within the Disciplinary guidelines as referenced in Para. 161g, 162h and 162s and 806.9 and 304.3. We believe our vision and mission encourages us to join the total church in  opening our hearts, our minds, and our doors."

Of course, the Book of Discipline references that she cited affirm God's love for homosexuals but call homosexual practice "incompatible with Christian teaching." Human rights for homosexuals are supported, but the church denies ordination to practicing homosexuals, refuses funding for pro-homosexuality advocacy, and will not allow same-sex unions.

Reconciling Ministries, the host of "Hearts of Fire" [sic], decidedly believes homosexual practice is compatible with Christian teaching and supports the ordination of active homosexuals and church "weddings" for same-sex couples.

According to the church's Social Principles, "sexual relations are only clearly affirmed in the marriage bond," a stance which Reconciling is decidedly in disagreement.

But listen to this. Beyond just the advocacy of homosexuality,"Hearts on Fire" will "explore the development of transgender and gender queer spirituality," according to its brochure.

We can expect "Hearts on Fire" to endorse a wide range of exotic sexual activities based on the spurious premise of "tolerance" and "inclusion."

The Lake Junaluska spokesperson pointed out to me that Lake Junaluska is renting the facility to Reconciling, not subsidizing "Hearts on Fire."

But the money is not the main principle here. The main issue is the witness of our church to the world. And, by the way, should a facility of our church be MAKING money on this kind of event?

What kind of message is the United Methodist Church transmitting if, even in conservative western North Carolina, we sanction a jamboree that celebrates the sexual revolution instead of honoring Christian virtues such as chastity and faithfulness?

Our church does not need this kind of money. The integrity of the Gospel is far more important than making money.

Tens of thousands of United Methodists over the decades have worshipped and prayed at Lake Junalusaka[sic]. Some of our church's finest preachers have proclaimed the Gospel there. Many United Methodists first came to faith in Jesus Christ there at the lakeside.

Why should this blessed and beautiful facility now be sullied with sexual ideologies of the secular world?

Our United Methodist Church does and should welcome ALL people to come hear the Gospel and worship God.

But our United Methodist Church should not welcome ALL secular ideologies and secular fads into our midst.

"Hearts of Fire!," [sic] with its celebration of exotic sexual behaviors, does not belong at a Christian retreat center.

I am sharing this information with you and with thousands of other United Methodists so that you can register your protest over "Hearts of Fire" [sic] to the executive director of Lake Junaluska, Jimmy Carr.

I am also suggesting you contact Bishop Charlene Kammerer, who chairs the Connectional Table for the Southeast Jurisdiction, which has authority over Lake Junaluska, encouraging her and the Connectional Table to intervene.

Please contact both persons right away by filling out the enclosed notes, which we will forward to them. I also encourage you to send e-mails directly to Mr. Carr: jlcarr@sejumc.org. Remember, be polite and respectful. We cannot effectively appeal to Christian teaching if we do not model Christian behavior!

Let's ask that "Hearts on Fire" not be permitted to convene at Lake Junaluska. Even if Mr. Carr declines or says it is too late, our protests can hopefully lead to Lake Junaluska having more careful and wiser policies in the future.

Remember, the radical forces that want to overthrow Christian teachings regarding marriage and sex (among other issues) in our church do not command majority support. But their supporters are an energized and well-organized minority.

Let not the majority of United Methodists remain silent! Let us speak out, now, in defense of our church's historic and Bible-based teachings.

Needless to say, our contacting hundreds of thousands of United Methodists over the next two months before September 2-5 "Hearts on Fire" pro-homosexuality jamboree will cost tens of thousands of dollars.

But I am convinced that the word about "Hearts on Fire" must get out.

Can you help us get the word out to hundreds of thousands of faithful United Methodists?

Your contribution of $5o, $75 or $100 will help us to ensure that "Hearts on Fire" will not remain a semi-secret. And it will help us move towards a day when finally, United Methodists can put these debates over homosexuality behind us and move forward together in mission.

Let us work for that day. Please act now! September 2 is close at hand!

With gratitude,

Mark Tooley
UMAction Executive Director

P.S. UMAction will be on site, covering whatever happens at "Hearts on Fire," particularly whatever the 7 bishops of our church have to say. Stay tuned for our reports by signing up for e-mail reports from our website at www.ird-renew.org.

______________________________

Mark Tooley can be e-mailed here. Contributions to the Reconciling Ministries Network can be made here.

Southern bishop exemplifies episcopal leadership on Junaluska controversy

Everyone who is concerned about the Lake Junaluska Conference and Retreat Center renting space to the Reconciling Ministries Network for a conference should read Bishop J. Lawrence McCleskey's letter to his conference.

In his letter Bishop McCleskey (pictured above) of the Western North Carolina Conference  summarizes the policies of the Book of Disciple on  issues having to do with sexual orientation.  He shows that the Lake Junaluska management has not violated the Discipline:  Jimmy Carr, executive director, has consistently interpreted the policies of the Discipline  accurately  (see Carr's statement here), and no denominational, jurisdictional or conference money has been or  is being used to subsidize the conference. Carr even consulted with the General Board of Finance and Administration to make sure he was not violating denominational rules before he accepted the booking. Nothing has happened here inconsistent with the Disciple.

Conversely, the Discipline instructs us to be in ministry with "all people" and says: "We implore families and churches not to reject or condemn lesbian and gay members and friends." (Paragraph 161.G)

Bishop McCleskey comes to this conclusion: "I believe the decision for the Lake Junaluska Assembly to host this conference, as an expression of our call to Christian hospitality and ministry, is appropriate and in keeping with both the letter and the spirit of the Book of Discipline."

He ends the letter with a stirring episcopal challenge:

I am aware that United Methodists hold strong and diverse opinions about this issue. That does not bother me. What does trouble me is the animosity and mean-spiritedness which persons on each side of the issue have expressed towards those who differ with them. I know personally United Methodists who are strongly opposed to this event and United Methodists who are strongly supportive of it. I know persons on both sides of this issue who love Christ and The United Methodist Church deeply.

I pray for civility in our differences. I pray for grace in our search for unity. I pray for unity in Christ which recognizes our diversity. I pray that the negative energy being expended around this event may somehow be transformed into positive emphasis on our primary mission to make disciples of Jesus Christ. He never called us to agree with each other, but he often admonished us to love one another. Whether we do that, he taught us, is the primary test of our discipleship!

I do have some minor reservations about the bishop's statement that each side in this matter has expressed animosity and mean-spiritedness. I think the Reconciling Clergy's response to the Good News Movement was anything but mean-spirited. However, even though I have not seen it, I am sure some of us who support the Reconciling Ministries Network may have responded less than graciously, so I will not complain too much about the bishop's efforts to be balanced.

All in all, Bishop McCleskey has exercised exemplary episcopal leadership with this letter. He has interpreted the Discipline accurately; he has  supported a church agency that has followed the Discipline, and he has challenged us to end the negativity.

I have already written here and here about the irony of groups that are working to change the Discipline on some issues trying to block other groups  from renting church facilities when they themselves think they should have the right to use them.  The Good News Movement's response to this obvious inconsistency is to say that the difference is that Good News's  views are consistent with Scripture and tradition while the Reconciling Ministries Network's positions are not. This is just another way of saying that conservative advocacy groups should be able to use church facilities because they are right, and we should not be able to because we are wrong.

Our interpretations may be different, but we read the Bible too. We base our thinking on the Bible, and its clear emphasis on inclusion and justice. You may disagree with our interpretation, as we disagree with yours, but you should not support double standards on the basis that yours is the true biblical interpretation and ours is wrong.

This is why these groups have the potential to be  more dangerous than they might appear to be at first glance. They just do not seem to understand that they do not necessarily have the corner on full and absolute truth, so they seem to feel no compunction about stifling or repressing others. If I know beyond a shadow of a doubt that I am absolutely right and can learn nothing from you, why should I  need to let you have your say, or  a place to meet?

In contrast to Bishop McCleskey's leadership, I am concerned about what other southern bishops  are saying. According to a report from the Institute on Religion and Democracy Bishop  Will Willimon (pictured right)  and others have expressed  “concern and displeasure” about the Reconciling Ministries conference. There is a statement on the North Alabama Conference website saying Bishop Willimon and his  cabinet will be sending a letter to Lake Junaluska urging management "to examine more closely its practices and procedures regarding the groups hosted at its facilities." I hope they make the letter public or issue another statement clarifying the basis for their objections. They should tell us  specifically why they are  displeased.

I am also concerned about the terminology being used by those unhappy with the Reconciling Ministries conference being held at Lake Junaluska. Good News refers to this event as a "pro-homosexuality rally." The Institute for Religion and Democracy does the same thing. It has even taken to calling the conference "a large pro-homosexuality conference," presumably because a large "rally" would seem more threatening than a small one. (See here.) About 400  of us are registered to attend, so I am not sure why the conference qualifies as a large "rally." 

Unfortunately, some others have taken up this inaccurate  terminology. In one of his weekly round-ups, John the Methodist of Locusts and Honey even refers to the event as a "pro-gay demonstration." (It is, of course,  hard to tell when John is trying to yank your chain and when he is serious.)

Most of us who will be attending the conference accept and  celebrate people, and seek to respect their sexual orientations, so we could just as easily be called pro-heterosexuality, I suppose. To call us pro-homosexuality is a strange term, and it is hard to believe it is used with good will. We want acceptance and justice for everyone. 

I have been very moved by the speech Kathryn Johnson made at the Methodist Federation for Social Action's Voices of Faith Conference last April. Entitled "Lest We Lose Sight of Our Vision: Laying Down Our Sword Within the United Methodist Church," the speech challenged us to treat others with whom we disagree with respect. As one example, she says:

Call people by their name. I choose to be called Kathryn, not Kathy. I ask people to respect that and call me Kathryn. If my name is “pro-choice,” others should not call me “pro-abortion.” I am not pro-abortion. I am pro-choice. Likewise if a group in the UMC chooses to identify themselves as an evangelical renewal group, we should refer to them in that way. We may not believe that their words or behaviors are evangelical or renewing, and we should feel free to hold them accountable, to express our convictions about their actions. I believe we can do so, however, without name calling.

Some will object that each group names itself in way that benefits them, says Roger Conner. Of course they do. So do we! Each of us gets to pick a name that accords with our highest ideals. By calling people by the name they choose, it is also fair game to call on them to live up to that name.

I have been working very hard to follow this basic concept of civility. I hope others might think about doing so as well.

The right to employment flows from a biblical understanding of justice -- An E-interview with Sheila Collins about the right to work: The Conclusion

Dr. Sheila Collins, a political scientist who formerly served with the Women's Division of the General Board of Global Ministries of the United Methodist Church, is a co-founder of the National Jobs for All Coalition.  In Part One of this e-interview she discussed the practicality of the idea found in the United Methodist Social Principles that "every person has a right to a job at a living wage." (See para. 163 . IV "The Economic Community" . C)  In Part Two she discussed what is preventing the United States from achieving full employment and what churches can do to advance this goal.

In the conclusion to this e-interview, Untied Methodist asked about the theological basis of the right to employment and the sources of Dr. Collin's commitment to this vision.

On what do you base your assertion that work and a livable wage are a human right? Is there a theological basis for the right to work?

To answer this question I would like to quote Amartya Sen, the Nobel Laureate economist who has done the most to study global poverty and inequality, and Dr. Martin Luther King who at the end of his life was eloquent about the effects of unemployment. 

There is plenty of evidence that unemployment has many far-reaching effects other than loss of income, including psychological harm, loss of work motivation, skill and self-confidence, increase in ailments and morbidity (and even mortality rates), disruption of family relations and social life, hardening of social exclusion and accentuation of racial tensions and gender asymmetries.

--Amartya Sen, Development as Freedom (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1999), pp.94-95. 

In our society it is murder, psychologically, to deprive a man [sic] of a job or an income.  You are in substance saying to that man that he has no right to exist.  You are in a real way depriving him of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, denying in his case the very creed of his society.

--Martin Luther King, Jr., The Trumpet of Conscience (New York: Harper & Row, 1967), p. 55. 

Since employment at living wages is so central to the ability to live a healthy and dignified life in community with others, there is every reason to consider it a human right.  In his 1944 State of the Union message, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt proposed a new Bill of Rights for the Nation.  If it had passed it would have defined work at living wages ("the right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation"), along with affordable and safe housing, adequate health care and education as basic human rights which the government was bound to guarantee.  These are the words with which FDR introduced his “Economic Bill of Rights": 

This Republic had its beginning, and grew to its present strength, under the protection of certain inalienable political rights--among them the right of free speech, free press, free worship, trial by jury, freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures.  They were our rights to life and liberty.

As our Nation has grown in size and statue, however--as our industrial economy expanded--these political rights proved inadequate to assure us equality in the pursuit of happiness.

We have come to a clear realization of the fact that true individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence.  "Necessitous men are not freemen."  People who are hungry and out of a job are the stuff of which dictatorships are made.

The international community, at least in principle if not always in practice, has recognized that work at living wages is essential to human life and social development and that to deprive human beings of work is to deprive them of a basic human right.  This right is enshrined in several international treaties and covenants, such as the United Nations Charter, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Article 23) and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (Articles 6-8). 

Despite this widespread recognition that decent employment and economic security are human rights, the U.S. Constitution makes no mention of such rights and there is no public recognition of this basic flaw in our system. Some of those who have studied the employment situation in the United States have recommended adding a constitutional amendment to the right to employment at living wages, but, sadly, there has been no widespread groundswell for such a proposal.  For further analysis of this idea, see: William P. Quigley, Ending Poverty as We Know It: Guaranteeing a Right to a Job at a Living Wage (Temple University Press, 2003). 

As for a theological basis for the right to work at living wages, the characterization of work in the Book of Genesis as punishment for original sin is not an encouraging start.  However, the overwhelming message of the prophets and of Jesus is one of justice for the poor and the oppressed. As the Catholic Bishops state in their Pastoral Letter, Economic Justice for All, employment as a basic right flows from this understanding of biblical justice. 

There are several passages in Scripture which can be interpreted as addressing the right to a job at a living wage, none better than Isaiah, speaking of the new Jerusalem as a time when “men shall build homes and inhabit them; plant vineyards and eat their fruit. They shall not build for others to inhabit nor plant for others to eat...my chosen shall enjoy the fruit of their labor." (Isaiah 65:21-22.9) Again Acts 4:32, in describing the early Christian community, relates that the believers held everything in common, that all shared their possessions and they were distributed as any had need. This passage has been a key organizing text for Christians for socialism. While it does not speak directly to the right to a job, it implies that those who have work have an obligation to share equally with those who do not. 

Walter Wink has interpreted Jesus’ parable of the laborers in the vineyard as a statement about the right to work for a living wage in Jesus’ vision of the reign of God. (Matthew 20) Though workers began at different times of the day, all received the same pay – a fair wage for a day’s work. Wink says that in our society, which claims that all persons are created equal, in fact they end up very unequal because of the market system. In Jesus’ vision, all begin unequal but at the end of the day, all are equal – a very strong argument for a living wage for all who want to work. 

Obviously you have made this concern a major focus of your own work as a professor and activist. Why?

It probably goes back to my growing up in a family in which economic insecurity was the leit motif.  My parents were both self-employed artists and never had steady incomes.  My father, who had grown up poor, lived every day under the threat of not being able to support his family and died of a heart attack at an early age largely, I believe, because of the stress of living with the daily threat of indigence.

As a young married woman, I lived for 10 years in East Harlem, New York, where poverty and unemployment were palpable.  I saw many good hardworking people struggle to support families on poverty-level wages, never able to escape the ghetto nor the prison-like brick public housing units that dot so many inner-city neighborhoods.  I also saw what unemployment and underemployment do to people in the wasted lives of drug addicts and alcoholics, prostitutes and pimps, numbers runners and hustlers, and in the squalor of their physical surroundings.  Living in a low income ghetto affected my spirit and made me more passionate about economic injustice.

Is there anything else you’d like us to know about full employment? 

Members of the National Jobs Coalition believe in the dignity of work and in a nation where everyone who wants to work can find a decent-paying job. We recognize, however, that there is also a problem of overwork and too little leisure and recreational time for many Americans.  We work for a society where work per se is not the end, but the means to a fulfilling life. 

Although the need for certain government benefits would be reduced if we were to achieve jobs for all, some public income support would still be needed, especially for the most vulnerable sectors of our population.  Full employment would be real welfare reform. In the meantime, we must strengthen our safety net.  Thus, we have not only worked for policies that would produce more jobs and raise wages, but we have also advocated for increasing government support for child and elder care (currently only about 15 percent of families eligible for public child care actually receive it), affordable preventive health care and other supportive services for working people, improving unemployment insurance, and saving Social Security as a social insurance program.

Our thanks to Dr. Collins for this compelling vision of jobs for all consistent with our United Methodist Social Principles.