untiedmethodist.com

Confessing Movement statement on unity risks fostering disunity

The Confessing Movement, a caucus within United Methodism devoted to "orthodox Trinitarian faith" and opposed to "homosexual practice," (see logo above) issued a statement about unity within the  United Methodist Church during a recent conference attended by some 300 people.

Unfortunately the link to the statement on the Confessing Movement's website does not seem to work, but veteran United Methodist reporter and editor Dan Gangler has summarized the statement in a United Methodist News Service (UMNS) story entitled "Confessing Movement issues statement on unity."

Gangler summarizes the document:

It defines genuine unity "as a precious gift of the Holy Spirit,  rooted in the gospel of Jesus Christ, witnessed to in Holy Scripture, summarized in ecumenical creeds, celebrated in worship and sacraments, demonstrated in common mission, articulated in our teaching, lived out in love, and contended for by the faithful."

I consider this paragraph a beautiful statement of Christian unity, reflecting the truth that unity is a gift from God, and that it is lived out in the church's life of worship, mission,  study, and love. This is a well-crafted paragraph with which I agree totally.

The statement, unfortunately, then seems to go on the attack . Gangler says:

The document also cites "practices that contribute to disunity," including neglect of Scripture, disobedience to the church's Doctrinal Standards, claims of new sources of revelation that set aside the authority of Scripture and the tested morality of the church, and "capitulation to lifestyles that are inconsistent with Christian discipleship."

If this paragraph is directed at persons like myself who want to change the Book of Discipline to fully include people of differing sexual orientations and gender identities in the life of the church, this list of "practices" is  unfortunate, and frankly mistaken.

1. We do not neglect Scripture. Our churches do Disciple Bible study and many other Bible studies. Our preaching is based on Scripture. We love the Bible. It shapes our lives and understanding. We plunge into it deeply to discover the essential truths of revelation, including God's advocacy for the poor and marginalized, the outcast and "unclean." We cherish the biblical witness to the Spirit's movement through history toward redemption, liberation, justice, reconciliation, and inclusion over against our sinful human desires to value and include only those we consider to be like us.  Members of the Confessing Movement must be careful not to imply that they are the only ones who love the Bible or who study it and base their lives on it. Such an attitude would itself be quite divisive.

2. We do not disobey the church's doctrinal standards. Well, yes we do, but so do we all.   John Wesley's General Rules (part of our doctrinal standards) call on us to avoid evil of every kind, including: "The putting on of gold and costly apparel," and "Laying up treasure upon earth." The General Rules also call upon us to do good "by giving food to the hungry, by clothing the naked, by visiting and helping them that are sick or in prison," and "by being in every kind merciful." I assume that the Confessing Movement does not consider itself superior to the rest of the church in these things. All of us need to pay more attention to avoiding evil, doing good, and attending all the ordinances of God. It is also true that our church's doctrinal standards are subject to re-examination and re-interpretation in order to apply them appropriately to the current context in which we live.

3. I am most interested in the Confessing Movement's criticism that some are claiming "new sources of revelation" that "set aside the authority of Scripture and the tested morality of the church." Here's my question: If science or medicine provides us with new information that might influence our interpretation and application of biblical revelation and truth, would the Confessing Movement accuse us of treating medical and scientific information as "new sources of revelation"? It is true that some of us have interpreted Scripture so as not to endorse aspects of  what once was "the tested morality of the church," such as the divine right of kings, the belief that the sun revolves around the earth and that scientific inquiry which might suggest otherwise is blasphemy, the endorsement of slavery, the silencing of women in the church,  an exclusively male clergy, the authority of husbands over wives and the expectation that wives shall be submissive, the definition of Africans and African-Americans as "the descendants of Ham" who are divinely predestined to be slaves, and the absolute outlawing of divorce except in cases of adultery. This part of the Confessing Movement's statement seems to come very close to suggesting that interpretations of Scripture which disagree with its views are a sign of disunity. Such an attitude, which limits acceptable biblical inquiry to that which reaches the same conclusion it does, would seem to me to itself  risk fostering disunity.

4. Certainly we are not advocating "lifestyles that are inconsistent with Christian discipleship" nor are we capitulating to such. While we are careful not to be judgmental, the Reconciling Ministries Network, and others who share our commitments, advocate faithfulness, commitment, honesty, openness, love, respect, mutuality, compassion, integrity, and Christ-likeness. These seem to me to be qualities of a lifestyle most consistent with Christian discipleship. If members of the Confessing Movement are arguing that only people who believe like them are capable of these kinds of lifestyle qualities, this seems to me to be to fostering disunity.

Again, I think the Confessing Movement's statement of the nature of unity as "a precious gift of the Holy Spirit" is beautiful. The movement's characterizations of "signs of disunity" are pejorative and , I think,  themselves  divisive.

Minutes of the meeting: Homily for a clergy gathering

Exodus 33

7 Now Moses used to take the tent and pitch it outside the camp, far off from the camp; he called it the tent of meeting. And everyone who sought the Lord would go out to the tent of meeting, which was outside the camp. 8 Whenever Moses went out to the tent, all the people would rise and stand, each of them, at the entrance of their tents and watch Moses until he had gone into the tent. 9 When Moses entered the tent, the pillar of cloud would descend and stand at the entrance of the tent, and the Lord would speak with Moses. 10 When all the people saw the pillar of cloud standing at the entrance of the tent, all the people would rise and bow down, all of them, at the entrance of their tent. 11 Thus the Lord used to speak to Moses face to face, as one speaks to a friend. Then he would return to the camp; but his young assistant, Joshua son of Nun, would not leave the tent.

I'd like to invite you into the kitchen. When I was studying  at Howard Divinity School, Professor Kortright  Davis  used to remind our seminars that we were having conversations in the kitchen, not for an audience, but just talking in the kitchen with our collars unbuttoned and the tabs flapping, talking honestly about what  ministry is about and trying to make sense of it all. I'd like to invite you into the kitchen.

Here in the kitchen, I want to share with you a dream I had last  Saturday night.  It was an anxiety dream, of course. It is not unusual for me to have anxiety dreams on Saturday nights, but this one was especially disturbing.

I was in a large rustic auditorium, or it may have been an immense cave. At the front of the auditorium was a pile of boulders, very large rocks, which were the source of the heat for the hall. I stood on one of the boulders.  People were beginning to enter the auditorium/cave.

We were dressed in rustic clothes, and our hair was shoulder length. At first I thought we  were native Americans; then, I thought, maybe we were Israelites from the time of Issac and Jacob.

Standing in front of me on a taller boulder was an elder. He had an aura. He may have  divine. He said to me that, as soon as we were ready to begin, he would call on me to read the minutes of the meeting.

I had no minutes. So I ran from the hall and began searching the huts in the village, every hut but my own, looking for minutes of the meeting. I found papers, but no minutes.

Suddenly it occurred to me that I may have never written down the minutes. I may have never written the minutes, and it was too late to write them now.

A feeling of disappointment with myself flooded me. I felt hopelessly incompetent. I was filled with despair.  I was resigned to self-defeat. It was an awful feeling.  I was relieved to wake up.

So, I want to suggest this morning that this is what we do. This is our job. We read the minutes of the meeting. This is what preachers do. This is what preaching is. We read the minutes of the meeting.

This is what the Bible is -- minutes of the meetings ... minutes of the divine-human meetings. The meetings are perfect and inerrant. The minutes are human and fallible. The  minutes are as influenced by human misunderstanding, human missing of the point, human focusing on the wrong thing as all minutes are. But the minutes are precious because they are what we have of the meetings.

I understand all too well what my dream last Saturday night was about. It has been a while since I've been to a meeting. Sunday mornings I've been going into the pulpit with no minutes of the meeting.

Oh, I know how to fake it. I've been doing this a long time. I have old stories I can tell, old illustrations I can reuse, interesting ideas to talk about.  But my preaching, really, has been pretty shallow lately, because I haven't  been going to the meetings. 

When I was in seminary years ago in Boston there was a preacher in one of the big churches there whom  students at the seminary used to call Dr. Tickle-text, because --they'd say-- he took the great texts of Scripture, stood in the pulpit, and tickled them for a few minutes, and then sat down. Dr. Tickle-text.

After someone had heard him preach on one of the great texts of Scripture, the person said about the sermon: "Never have I seen so small a rabbit pulled out of so large a hat." Dr. Tickle-text.

This is what my preaching is like lately. I haven't been going to the meetings.

When the Israelites were in the wilderness, when they made camp, Moses would pitch a tent outside the camp. He called it the tent of meeting. He would go there to meet God.

I've been reading about the tent of meeting this week.  I was surprised to discover that the tent of meeting and the tabernacle were the same thing. J and D called it a tabernacle. P and E called it a tent of meeting.  The Yahwist, who believed in an individualistic jealous God, called it a tabernacle. The Yahwist and the Deuteronomist thought it was about a gathering. The priests and Elohists, who believed in something like a triune God, knew the tent was about a meeting.

I've been been avoinding the meetings. I know how to avoid them: 1) Drive to church instead of walking. Find a reason I need to take the car rather than walk. A meeting is too likely to happen when I am walking.  2) Let my desk get messy. I can always miss a meeting because I need to push papers around my desk. 3) Turn on the TV as soon as I walk in the door at the end of a day, even if the only thing on it to watch is the 70s Show.

I know how to avoid a meeting.

I avoid meetings for a couple reasons.  I angry at God right now.  There are things I need to do as a pastor right now that I am angry about having to do. I am angry. I'll show God. I wouldn't come to the meetings.

The other reason I have been skipping the meetings is because I don't want to do what I have to do, or be what I have to be. When I am in  the presence of God --God doesn't even have to talk to me-- in the presence of God I know what I have to do and who I have to be. So I avoid knowing what I have to do and who have to be by not going to the meetings.

Then Sunday morning I have no minutes of the meeting to read. I have to fake it.  Pull out some old stories, old illustrations, warmed over stuff. Phone it in. Dr. Tickle-text. Pull out a small rabbit out of a big hat.

No meeting, no minutes.

I have been here before, so I am hopeful. There have been other times in my life and ministry when I have been angry and alienated from God. When I have finally drug myself to the tent of meeting, God has always been there.  God has been patient. God has been willing to meet me at the tent of meeting.

And our people are patient. They stand outside their tents in the wilderness, and watch to see if we are going out to the tent of meeting ... watching to see if the pillar of cloud will descend on us. They watch to see: Will we  stand in our pulpits and share our interesting thoughts and opinions and good ideas or will be bring minutes of the meeting?

They know. They can tell. They will tolerate our ideas and stories, but what they are waiting for is minutes of the meeting.

But to have minutes we have to go to the meeting. We have to give up our anger. We have to sit face-to-face in the presence of the divine whose very presence calls us to do what we don't want to do and to be who we don't want to be.

To have minutes of the meeting we have to pitch the tent of meeting out side the camp, and we need to make our way to the tent of meeting. No meeting, no minutes. 

On peace demonstrators -- Q and A with Donald Sensing

The Rev. Donald Sensing, a United Methodist pastor serving in Tennessee, is a retired army officer who blogs at One Hand Clapping. His military career was highly distinguished including service in Korea, and the Panama and Gulf wars. He ended his military career as a  senior level public relations officer. His son is currently serving in the Marines in Iraq. (Please keep him and others possibly  in harm's way in your prayers.)

Although I do not always agree, I find Donald's writing to be thoughtful and articulate. I wanted my Foundry and other readers to consider his perspective on the War in Iraq, so I invited him to respond to several questions. One question, to which he has  replied (I hope he will also be able to find time to reply to others), has to do with his view of anti-war demonstrators.

Here is my question and his response:

Do you really believe the peace movement is not well intentioned or are you just being provocative? Why?

Dean, grace and peace to you in the name of our Savior, Jesus Christ!

One of the questions you asked me to respond to was whether I really think that the peace movement really has good intentions, or was I just being provocative.

Rather than ask your congregants to read my response to the question, I recommend they read today's essay by Christopher Hitchens, who has deeply-rooted, authentic leftist credentials (which I certainly do not). Hitchens makes the same basic point I did, except with greater personal insights and fluency.

Key paragraph:

To be against war and militarism, in the tradition of Rosa Luxemburg and Karl Liebknecht, is one thing. But to have a record of consistent support for war and militarism, from the Red Army in Eastern Europe to the Serbian ethnic cleansers and the Taliban, is quite another. It is really a disgrace that the liberal press refers to such enemies of liberalism as "antiwar" when in reality they are straight-out pro-war, but on the other side. Was there a single placard saying, "No to Jihad"? Of course not. Or a single placard saying, "Yes to Kurdish self-determination" or "We support Afghan women's struggle"? Don't make me laugh. And this in a week when Afghans went back to the polls, and when Iraqis were preparing to do so, under a hail of fire from those who blow up mosques and U.N. buildings, behead aid workers and journalists, proclaim fatwahs against the wrong kind of Muslim, and utter hysterical diatribes against Jews and Hindus.

So I would challenge your readers to explain, if only to themselves, just how the so-called "antiwar" groups active today can possibly be credited with good intentions. They have a many-years-long record of supporting the cruelest, most oppressive, murderous tyrants on earth. In what possible Christian manner can their intentions be credited as good?

As I explained in my original post, I am not referring to the "small number of true pacifists" such as Quakers and Mennonites, "but their visibility and influence is near negligible." Apart from the true pacifists who neither support America's wars nor America's military enemies, "peace" activists fall into two main camps.

First is the one Hitchens describes and that I called the "Down With America" camp who will ally themselves with any thug on earth who also opposes the United States. Second, whom Hitchens does not address, is the "Political Identity" camp who "do not object to war per se, they mainly object to war being waged by the wrong people," which is to say, this administration. Certainly they supported President Clinton's invasions of Haiti and the Balkans and his multiple strikes against Iraq, Afghanistan and Sudan, even though these actions were ineffective and ill-planned. When simple partisan political advantage is the obvious motive in their opposition to the present administration, in just what way is that a good intention?

Do I think all this is provocative? No. In fact, it's not provocative enough.

None of this is to say that the Bush administration is off limits to criticism for its conduct of the war, nor that the Congress's decision to declare war upon Iraq in October 2002 should never be examined. It is one thing, and necessary, to hold our elected officials accountable for what they do on our behalf. It is quite another thing to call for victory by the enemies of the United States, who would have sought our destruction whether Iraq had been invaded or not.

Grace,

Rev. Donald Sensing

A Sunday morning prayer in Washington, D.C. on the weekend of Sept. 24-25, 2005

We come before you, O holy God, with hearts full of thoughts of storms and wars and diseases.

Tame, O God, the earthquake, wind, and fire and all the forces that defy control or shock us by their fury.

Keep us from calling disaster your justice.

Move our hearts to mercy so that victims of hurricanes and floods may be better off when we have done all we can do than they were before.

We come before you, God of peace, begging for the end of wars.

Deliver us from all that makes for strife, violence, and death.

Deliver us from fear and distrust of other nations, from lust for riches, from putting our trust in guns and bombs, from lack of faith in the power of justice and good will.

Bring peace and justice to Iraq, to the Middle East, to the Sudan, to Liberia, to Zimbabwe, to the United States, to all those places where the human family is divided.

We come before you, God of health and wholeness, praying for the healing of diseases.

We long for an end to cancer, an end to addictions, an end to AIDS.

Sweeten the hearts and voices of our choirs as they sing this Friday on behalf of those living with HIV-AIDS. Focus our concern on the good we can do more than goals we would meet.  Focus us on the power of your love that multiplies itself in ways beyond our control.

Finally, O God of love, bring calm and peace to our city, to our neighborhoods, to our denominations, and congregations, to our own troubled and divided hearts.

We pray all this in the name of the One who could have called an army of angels but who chose the way of the cross ... even Jesus the Christ, our Lord and our Savior. Amen.

*Portions of this prayer are based on  the prayers "In Time of Natural Disaster" and  "For Peace" in the United Methodist Book of Worship.

A somber march tomorrow

My day tomorrow is pretty full with meetings and appointments that have been scheduled for some time, but I am going to try to join the peace march at some point during the day. (See route above.)

My rationale for participating is strategic. Yes, I am worried about the idea of an immediate pullout from Iraq unless an international force were available to step in to try to make peace. However, I do believe our government needs to be encouraged to look for alternatives to the current way we are conducting this war. Our leaders need pressure to develop a viable plan for turning a stable Iraq back to the Iraqis.

Like many others, I did not support us starting  this war. I am unfortunately not a pacifist. Hopefully I am pacifistic. In any event, I was not convinced this war was necessary.

Just before the war began, I happened to meet  a United Methodist at a lecture held at American University. He was a member of a church near mine, and we got to talking. He told me he had just left the State Department because he was convinced evidence was being manipulated to support the existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. His name was Greg Theilman (pictured right).

Greg later spoke out about his conviction that the work of our governmental intelligence agencies had been politicized to support a conclusion the administration wanted American to believe.

Here is part of an interview Greg did on Frontline:

Was there an imminent threat? Was there a grave and growing danger, in your view?

... I thought that there was never an imminent threat. This was a long-term security concern, if the international community did not limit carefully the Iraqis, that the interests remained in these kind of programs, and there was a lot of knowledge in the minds of Iraqi scientists that would allow them to pursue these kind of programs. That was the nature of the threat, but that's not the way the threat was described to the American people.

... Before you retired from the I&R, from the intelligence unit at the State Department, what conclusions were you drawing as you watched this growing divergence between what was being said by policymakers and what you knew was the intelligence?

The conclusion that I ultimately came to was that this was a matter of, as I've called it, faith-based intelligence. Instead of our leadership forming conclusions based on a careful reading of the intelligence we provided them, they already had their conclusion to start out with, and they were cherry-picking the information that we provided to use whatever pieces of it that fit their overall interpretation. Worse than that, they were dropping qualifiers and distorting some of the information that we provided to make it seem more alarmist and more dangerous than the information that we were giving them.
...
You're saying that this was a clear case, in this last year, of politicization of intelligence.

As reluctant as I am to try to understand the motives of people using the intelligence, my bottom line on this subject is that while the intelligence community did not do a good job, in my view, in being very careful to be precise for both decision makers and for the American public, the primary blame is in the way that senior officials of the administration made statements -- which I can only describe as dishonest statements -- about the nature of what the intelligence was saying.

When it comes to war, our nation's leaders must be totally trustworthy. This administration, I fear,  has created an atmosphere of distrust as to its motives. I was especially  discouraged by the weakness of Secretary Colin Powell's presentation to the United Nations on Feb. 5, 2003. 

I am also discouraged by the way this war has been conducted.  The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists ran a damning article entitled "Willful Ignorance" in its  July/Aug.  2005 issue.  The article  summarizes the best military thinking about how to fight an insurgency, and demonstrates that the current Pentagon thinking emphasizes overwhelming force and might (which backfires in a insurgency situation) rather than a holistic coordinated strategy involving non-combat components. The article, referring to a Nov. 2004 Army War College about fighting insurgencies,  says:

Yet what makes the report so striking is its implicit criticism of the current Pentagon leadership. Almost all of its recommendations for defining how the army thinks about the likely staple of current and future warfare--the need for more and better training and education of American troops, more civil affairs and engineering units, better relationships between the army and non-military government agencies, as well as simply an actual acknowledgment of the importance of counterinsurgency doctrine--are far removed from the type of "transformation" pursued by the Rumsfeld Pentagon. Moreover, another of the report's central contentions--that the U.S. military should not exacerbate or legitimize liberation insurgencies by deploying increasing numbers of troops to those conflict zones--stands at odds with a current bipartisan orthodoxy that simply sees increasing enlistments and deployments (without any commensurate doctrinal reform) and new weapons systems as the cure-all. But as Sun-Tzu famously observed, all warfare is based on deception--which, apparently, includes self-deception as well.

The lives  of the young people being deployed in this war are too precious to use them this way. Why are we relying on force when the best military thinking insists the emphasis needs to be on negotiations, relationship,  and community building.

I believe the message of the march tomorrow is that Americans are increasingly uncomfortable with the motivation and circumstances of the initiation of this war, increasingly concerned about the determination and ability  of our leaders to conclude this war as quickly as possible, and increasingly worried about our competence to conduct the war effectively.  I hope our nation's leaders take the message seriously.

I think one of the most important parts of the weekend will be the prayer service scheduled for Sunday evening 6 p.m. at the Sylvan Theater on the grounds of the Washington Monument. Some of us may disagree about this war, but we all want peace and can join in praying for peace.

The War in Iraq -- An E-interview with Shaun Casey of Wesley Seminary

Shaun Casey (pictured below), assistant professor of Christian ethics at Wesley Theological Seminary in Washington, D.C., is an expert on just war theory. He has written on the religious beliefs of the last two presidents and has appeared on ABC News Nightline, PBS's Religion and Ethics Newsweekly, and National Public Radio to discuss the ethics of the war in Iraq.

He also served as the 2003 Wogaman lecturer at Foundry Church, discussing just war theory and the War in Iraq. His education includes a Doctor of Theology in Religion and Society from the Harvard Divinity School and a Masters of Public Administration from the Harvard University Kennedy School of Government. In addition, he has earned a Master of Divinity from Harvard Divinity School and a Bachelor of Arts from Abilene Christian University.

As thousands of Americans prepare to march against the war here in Washington, D.C. on Sept. 24, I asked him about his current thinking on the War in Iraq. My questions are in italics.

When you spoke at Foundry in 2003, you were very clear that you thought the United States beginning a war with Iraq did not meet the conditions of just war principles. But what now? What do you do when you are in the middle of a war even if its beginnings were, as you argued, unjust?

I believe that the task for Christians who believed, as I did, that this war was unjust from the outset have a duty to continue to make that case both in the Church and also in the public realm.  That is often hard to do, but over time it has become clear that the majority of Americans now share this view.

What do you think would happen if we pulled our troops out of Iraq today?

This is a much harder question, because it is not clear what the best moral option is.  If we leave promptly, will Iraq spiral down into complete chaos?  We have created a haven for international terrorists there, and we have not had a lot of success in rebuilding the country’s infrastructure we destroyed in the war.  I am not optimistic that if we left today that Iraq would survive.

Is it possible for just war principles to help us develop an exit strategy for this war? 

The just war ethic offers no magic formulas, but the criterion of right intention suggests that we have ongoing responsibilities once we went to war.  We need to have the best interests of the Iraqi people at the center of our actions.  We are now in the unhappy place where our invasion may have produced even worse consequences for Iraq, for ourselves, and the international community.  I do not believe there is a policy option out there that can undo all the damage that has taken place.

President Bush has suggested that establishing democracy in Iraq will help spread democracy throughout the Middle East, and some argue that there have been signs of increased progress toward democracy in the Middle East since the war began. Do you agree?

I do not see this evidence.  The irony is that we may be learning that one cannot export liberal democracy through the barrel of a gun.  I believe that our government is now settling for a form of governance in Iraq that falls far short of the ideal of liberal democracy it once touted.

What should U.S. Christians be doing to be peacemakers at this particular point in time?

They should be doing four things: 

First, pray.  Pray for peace, pray for wisdom. 

Second, the Church may be the only location in our society where people all across the political spectrum might be able to come together to assess the hard options we face as a nation. Can we help nudge the conversation along? 

Third, express your views in public.  The anti-war movement is growing and I believe it is fed in no small measure by Christian participation. 

Finally, I think the best hope for Iraq is to internationalize the reconstruction and security efforts there.  This may be wildly unrealistic given how hard we worked to drive away other countries from the reconstruction effort early on.  But we may have to announce a withdrawal date some months out and then invite an international conference to convene to divide up the responsibilities among world powers for security and reconstruction.

As a professor at a United Methodist seminary, do you think our Wesleyan and Methodist heritage informs us in any way about our responsibilities as citizens in the face of this war?

Yes, in that the Wesleyan tradition seeks to hold together knowledge and piety.  Methodists continue to gather in worship and in celebration of the sacraments while simultaneously applying the intellect to work through hard public issues.

What else can you tell us to help us understand this war in the light of our Christian faith and ethics?

The tragic story of this war reinforces the logic of the just war ethic that war is a last resort to be used only when all other means have failed.  This war was rightly called an optional war by one conservative commentator, and I believe we are reaping the bitter fruit of this terrible choice.

My thanks to Professor Casey.

The War in Iraq -- An e-interview with Jim Winkler of GBCS

This Sunday thousands of people from around the United States are planning to march here in  Washington, D.C., to call for peace in Iraq. I asked Jim Winkler (pictured below), general secretary of the United Methodist General Board of Church and Society (GBCS), who is a leading opponent of the War in Iraq, to respond to some questions about his position on the war.  I appreciate his willingness to engage in this conversation.  My questions are in italics.

You have stated that you believe the United States should pull out of Iraq immediately because we cannot bring peace, democracy, or stability there. Why   do you say this?

Each nation has its own reality, peculiarities, nuances, complexities, history, culture, etc. What, realistically, can an invasion force accomplish? If strong enough, it can certainly overthrow the existing regime but the very idea that the invaders can impose peace, democracy, and stability seems unrealistic to me, at best.

Imagine an invading force attacking the United States in order to change us to a monarchy or to remove the ruling party from power or to require us to pay reparations to Vietnam or Grenada or Panama or other countries we have invaded. Perhaps each of these aims could be temporarily achieved with enough power, but real and lasting change would have to come from inside our nation. Indeed, an outside invasion would probably setback the aims of the invaders due to the intense anger the population would feel against them.

Iraq is an ancient and complicated land and the administration's planning for the post-war situation was haphazard at best. Let's face it, the Bush Administration did not invade Iraq to achieve the aims stated in your question. Rather, one and only one goal was in mind and that was to remove Saddam Hussein whose ouster eluded George W. Bush's father.

If I understand you correctly,you believe Iraq will have to undergo a civil war, maybe a five-year-long war, no matter when U.S. troops pull out. Do I understand you correctly? Is there no way the United States can help avert civil war in Iraq?

Iraq is a deeply fragmented nation, an ancient land but still one with borders arbitrarily drawn in 1916 by French and British diplomats. Different religions, tribes, and ethnic groups are contained within its borders.  I suspect as bad as Saddam was he held it together through terror and brute force. Likely, either it will fall apart or another dictator will eventually seize control.

I simply have no idea if the United States can do anything to avert a civil war, but our motives are too suspect and our presence has resulted in the deaths of too many innocent people for us to play a positive role.

If genocide is a possibility in Iraq, don't we have a responsibility to make sure it doesn't happen? Why not?

I don't know that genocide is a possibility in Iraq, but if a slaughter of Sunnis, Kurds, or Shiites were to result I believe the international community must be mobilized to stop it and I hope we would contribute under the banner of a United Nations peacekeeping force if it was judged that our soldiers presence would help.

You have suggested that peace in Iraq is dependent upon peace in the Middle East in general, including between Israel and Palestine. Help us better understand the relationship between the situation in Iraq and the situation in Israel.

Jews, Christians, and Muslims all consider Jerusalem to be a holy city and the land around it to be the Holy Land. So many emotions and so much spiritual force is focused there that no one can see the struggle there as a minor conflict in a small territory. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict dominates the agenda of the entire region. Peace is possible in Israel and Palestine and if it can be reached in a just and enduring manner, the resulting positive energy can be harnessed for good throughout the Middle East.

What are you hearing from United Methodists throughout the nation? Are we mostly divided about this war? Have you noticed any changes in the sentiment of United Methodists during the past months? Is a denominational consensus emerging?

I find fewer and fewer people supporting and defending the war. It has been a huge disaster and people mostly seem to be depressed about it. Mostly, supporters lift up our troops and say that opposition to the war undermines their safety. At the leadership level, I can't remember the last time a bishop or general secretary expressed to me support for the war.

You have taken a lot of heat. Why have you chosen to take on this issue? What sustains you?

Actually, I have taken a lot less heat for my opposition to the war than I thought I would. When I do, I mostly hear from men and when I am able to determine who they are, they are almost always white men over the age of 40. Support for the war seems to be led by that powerful demographic group. I believed from the beginning that this war was a terrible idea. I spoke out for the first time on Aug. 30, 2002 after traveling twice to the region in the wake of Sept. 11. No one there I spoke to thought an invasion of Iraq was a wise course of action. There is something uniquely evil about war. I am sustained by my faith in Jesus Christ. I can find no evidence whatsoever that Jesus would support this or any other war.

My thanks to Jim Winkler for this e-interview and for his leadership within our denomination.

Bishop Willimon puts down reconciling congregations

Bishop Will Willimon (right) of the North Alabama Conference  has clarified his objection to the Hearts on Fire convocation held at Lake Junaluska, the Southeastern Jurisdiction's conference center, on Labor Day weekend.  At least I think he has.

The North Alabama Conference posted a statement on its website Aug, 11 entitled "North Alabama Conference Statement regarding 'Hearts on Fire' event Sept. 2-5 at Lake Junaluska."

The statement said that "Bishop William H. Willimon and the other Southeastern Bishops expressed their concern and displeasure over the 'Hearts on Fire' event ..."

Nowhere in the statement, however, did it say what Bishop Willimon's actual objection to the conference was. In the bishop's Sept. 19 weekly message entitled "Thinking Like a Christian," he finally clarifies his objection, at least one of them.  He argues that those of us who are part of the Reconciling Ministries Network do not care about other Christian concerns.

Here is a paragraph from  his message:

Today I fear that “Single-issue politics” are impoverishing our political life and single-issue thinking is threatening our Methodist way of serving Christ.  One of the things wrong with the “Hearts on Fire!” meeting that met recently at Junaluska was that these sisters and brothers have seized upon one issue of the faith, have climbed up on some self- presumed moral high ground and have pushed this to the virtual exclusion of larger concerns about the church and the church’s mission today.

He goes on to criticize Donald Wildman of the American Family Association (AFA) and the Institute on Religion and Democracy (IRD). He says that "they have seized upon the same issue as the test of our faith, climbed up on high moral ground, and drawn a line in the sand to the virtual exclusion of other Body of Christ concerns."

Let me say, first of all, that Bishop Willimon could not be more wrong about my congregation, which has been a part of the Reconciling Ministries Network for a decade. We work with the homeless; we send Volunteer in Mission teams to Central America and Africa; we are assertively evangelistic; we work with immigrants; we have a dozen mission groups; we pay one of the highest apportionments in the conference and raise hundreds of thousands of dollars for additional mission efforts each year. The list could go on and on.

Because one of our commitments is to help our denomination become fully inclusive of  gay and lesbian United Methodists does not make us a "single-issue" congregation. And we are not dissimilar from the other congregations that make up the Reconciling Ministries Network.

I guess calling those of us who care about justice and inclusion for lesbian and gay United Methodists "single-issue" United Methodists is a way of avoiding the concern we are raising. By suggestion that  we are not good United Methodists but people concerned only about a single issue, Bishop Willimon seems to suppose he does not have to deal with the issue. Like those who opposed the abolitionists because they were too focused on slavery as opposed to other concerns, he supposes he does not have to address the question of whether our church policies are just or not.

Bishop Willimon calls those of us who care about including gay and lesbian Christians in the church "fringe" and "little." He writes: "I would urge our United Methodists not to let these fringe groups determine the mission of our church.  Christ has given us our mission and that mission is considerably more demanding, complex, and exciting than these little groups admit."

I would like him to think about how insulting this is to the many reconciling congregations across the country who pay our apportionments, serve our communities, work for racial justice, study the Bible, and do evangelism.

I have a lot of respect for Bishop Willimon. I have appreciated and enjoyed his writings throughout the years. However, I think this maneuver of trying to criticize both RMN and IRD is just that ... a maneuver. He is trying to avoid addressing one of the important and difficult issues of our time by dismissing both sides as "single-issue" groups.  Just as this is not true of reconciling congregations, it is not even true of IRD which began as an effort to oppose liberation theology in the third world.

I wish Bishop Willimon would come and visit Foundry Church and some of the other reconciling congregations across the country. Doesn't he owe us this before he calls us "single-issue,"' " fringe" and "little"? I think I would rather have him just come right out and say he disagrees with us rather than to seek to avoid the issue by demeaning reconciling congregations like Foundry Church.

Bishop Willimon,  you owe Foundry Church and other reconciling congregations an apology. 

Our troubled denominational marriage

We here at Foundry have just completed our second Pre-Cana Weekend (a term we stole from the Catholics; I hope they haven't put a copyright on it).

It is a marriage/commitment preparation weekend we put together last fall to give those planning to marry at Foundry or elsewhere an alternative to meeting for 4 1/2 hours of sessions with the officiating pastor. We are still developing it, but the two times we've done these weekend workshops they have gotten very good reviews from participating couples.

My wife Jane and I are certified to do Meyers-Briggs Type Indicator work, so we spend some time helping couples understand their types and how they can use type theory to understand their differences. Debra, Foundry's associate, does Bible study and leads couples through a process of discussing the mission and priorities of their marriage. We do short lectures about sex, children, money, in-laws, and sharing space.

One of the tools I  introduce to couples is Thomas-Kilmann conflict theory. Thomas-Kilmann theory suggests there are five styles we tend to use to respond in conflict situations. The people at Otto Kroeger Associates who taught me this theory have added animal images to make them easier to remember.

The five conflict styles are:

• avoiding (the turtle)
• accommodating (the teddy bear)
• competing (the shark)
• compromising (the fox)
• collaborating (the owl)

Thomas-Kilmann theory includes two especially important points:

1. Each of these styles is appropriate in certain situations. If you know someone at the end of the block has a weapon, avoiding them may be a good idea. If you don't care that much, accommodating may work fine. If your child is determined to run in front of a car, competing with him or her,  and winning, makes a lot of  sense. This is not a time to accommodate or compromise.

2. Most of us gravitate toward one style that is our favorite without considering whether this style will be the most effective in this situation. When we use a style habitually, over the long haul it tends to lead to unhealthy, non-mutual relationships.

We use Thomas-Kilmann theory to try to help couples think about their preferred styles, how these styles work together, the consequences of using these styles habitually, and the possibility of learning to think about using appropriate styles rather than habitual ones.

Some couples have told me this has been one of the most useful parts of the weekend for them. Sharks have learned how to sometimes choose to be teddy bears. Turtles have sometimes been able to act like  sharks when the stakes were high enough. Couples have decided that there are times to accept a quick compromise, and that there are times when the long complex process of figuring out how to collaborate is worth it.  (Collaboration means trying to understand the deeper  needs beneath the surface  so that the couple can figure out a way  that both partners can have their needs met for a win-win.)

In our denominational conflicts it is clear to me that our church is full of  sharks right now. Yes, we have managed some compromises in which each side wins something, but each side also loses something. The compromises don't seem very satisfying any more. We --on both sides-- are acting more and more like sharks.

The Watershed Information Network says about collaboration:

This results from a high concern for your group's own interests, matched with a high concern for the interests of other partners. The outcome is "win/win." This strategy is generally used when concerns for others are important. It is also generally the best strategy when society's interest is at stake. This approach helps build commitment and reduce bad feelings. The drawbacks are that it takes time and energy. In addition, some partners may take advantage of the others' trust and openness. Generally regarded as the best approach for managing conflict, the objective of collaboration is to reach consensus.

I have this conviction that if we could just get beneath our surface conflicts to understand the deeper values and needs that shape our positions in this conflict, we could collaborate on a way to honor both side's needs and deepest values. Unfortunately, we seem so busy chewing each others' legs off that we can't get anywhere near this possibility.

Open hearts, open minds, open doors ... for real

The original "Open hearts, open minds, open doors" commercial was based on a true story. It was a story from the life of the Rev. Dr. Roger K. Swanson (pictured below), co-author of The Faith-Sharing Congregation: Developing a Strategy for the Congregation as Evangelist and former team leader for evangelism for the General Board of Discipleship.

When Roger was a boy, he and his brother figured out how to break into a Methodist church with a pool table in its basement in their hometown. They broke into the church regularly to play pool after school.

One day they saw a shadow out of the corner of their eyes. It was the pastor. Their faces filled with fear.

The pastor spoke to the boys: "There's no one in this town trying harder to get into this church than you guys are." He reached into his pocket, pulled out a key, handed it to the boys, and said with a smile: "Come anytime you want."

Roger reports that as a result of this radical act of hospitality, his family became active in the church, his mother eventually became the church treasurer and his father a trustee. A multi-generational history of alcoholism was interrupted, he says. The congregation helped pay Roger's way through college. He became a pastor, and then a national program executive of the United Methodist Church.

This commercial was soon replaced by ads written by a professional advertising agency. But this original story is the true meaning of "Open hearts, open minds, open doors." Some have criticized the "Open hearts, open minds, open doors" slogan as too vague. But there is nothing vague or wimpy about it.

A pastor decided to give a key to his church to two boys who had been breaking and entering. He did not ask the boys to repent. He did not scold them. He did not require them to attend church or Sunday school. He just welcomed them.

He didn't get the trustee's  or district superintendent's permission. He didn't  ask the insurance company about liability issues or call the conference chancellor.   

As a result, a family script was rewritten. Lives were transformed. The course of history was touched.

Talking about the acceptance he experienced from that pastor years ago, Swanson says: "It is still, today, the best image of Christ that I have."