untiedmethodist.com

Church and Society Board calls for end of U.S. presence in Iraq

The United Methodist General Board of Church and Society has issued the following statement:

A Call to End the U.S. Military Presence in Iraq

As followers of Jesus Christ, the Prince of Peace, we pray for peace, stability and freedom in Iraq. We believe the Iraqi peoples can and should ultimately determine how it will be achieved. It is time for the United States to appeal for international cooperation, not in waging war but in working with Iraqis of good will to set their nation on the course toward peace and prosperity.

As people of faith we raise our voices in protest against the tragedy of the unjust war in Iraq. We urge the United States government to develop and implement a plan for the withdrawal of its troops. The U.S. invasion has set in motion a sequence of events which may plunge Iraq into civil war. 

Every war is a tragedy that wounds the heart of God. This particular war is especially tragic in that a bi-partisan U.S. commission appointed by President Bush and chaired by former Governor Tom Keane and former Representative Lee Hamilton has established that:

·         No weapons of mass destruction were stored in Iraq;

·         There was no attempt on the part of the government of Saddam Hussein to purchase uranium from the nation of Niger;

·         There were no ties between Saddam Hussein and the events of September 11, 2001;

·         There were no ties between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda.

Thousands of lives have been lost and hundreds of billions of dollars wasted in a war the United States initiated and never should have fought. The United States is now morally obligated to provide the vast economic resources needed to aid in the post-war reconstruction of Iraq. The ongoing cost of the war continues to drain public resources that are desperately needed in Iraq as well as in the United States. We grieve for all those whose lives have been lost or destroyed in this needless and avoidable tragedy. Military families have suffered undue hardship from prolonged troop rotations in Iraq and loss of loved ones. It is time to bring them home. 

Our opposition to the war in no way diminishes democratic ideals, traditions or the very freedoms the men and women of the military defend. Opposition to war is not unpatriotic. We honor those who serve the common good and owe them a commitment to pursue the peaceable path that they may not be put in harm’s way again.

We call upon the U.S. Congress to adopt legislation such as the “Homeward Bound Act” (H. J. Res. 55), the first bipartisan effort to bring home U.S. troops. We encourage them to make a full investigation and hold accountable those responsible for the misleading ‘intelligence’ and disastrous decisions that fueled this war.

We call upon the U.S. government to fully cooperate with the United Nations and its envoy and special representative in Iraq to bring about a peaceful, long-term resolution to the conflict and to rebuild Iraq. 

Finally, we call upon all people of faith to pray for a just, equitable peace for the beleaguered people of Iraq and all those whose lives have been damaged by the consequences of this war.

Rev. Donald Sensing on Opposing the Iraq War: Part Two

The Rev. Donald Sensing, a United Methodist pastor and retired Army officer, blogs at One Hand Clapping. In the interest of considering diverse viewpoints on the war, I ask him to respond to some questions about the War in Iraq. Here is a second installemt of his reply:

Late last month, Dean was kind enough to publish my answer to his question on whether I was serious about my claim that peace protesters do not have good intentions, and that peace is actually not on their agenda. That posting is here.

I understood Dean’s question to be focused on the organized demonstrators such as those sponsored by ANSWER and affiliated groups, and that is how I wrote my response.

In this post I want to move away from “demonstrators” per se and examine whether the invasion Iraq could have been opposed beforehand with good intentions. The issue of what to support (or oppose) now that we are in Iraq is not part of this essay. Dean has asked me to write about that also but in this essay I will look back at the situation leading up to the invasion of March 2003.

Again I will distinguish, as did Dean’s question to me, the invasion of Iraq from the toppling of the Taliban in Afghanistan. Even the United Metrhodist Church’s Council of Bishops endorsed the Afghanistan campaign, albeit grudgingly.

I pointed out previously that demonstrators against the Iraq war consisted basically of only two types: those who oppose America no matter what, of which the streets have been full, and those who oppose not America but the current president of America. The demonstrators, almost without exception, have consisted of these two factions, the anti-America and the anti-Bush/anti-Republican groups. There have been a few demonstrators who oppose the war who are by no means anti-American and are indifferent to Bush or the Republicans themselves, but they are very few of the marchers.

So there was (and still is) opposition to the Iraq war from purely ideological and political motivations. The question for this essay is whether one could have opposed the then-looming Iraq war in 2002 and 2003 from a basis that was neither ideologically anti-American nor overtly partisan-political.

Christian pacifism would fit this bill, of course. The American Society of Friends (the Quakers) and the Mennonites have been historically pacifists but no reasonable claim can be made that their opposition to the Iraq war was anti-American or partisan political. I happen not to believe that pacifism is a morally sustainable position, but that’s a topic for another essay, perhaps.

So on what other basis could “loyal” opposition to the Iraq war have been made? Let me state what I am sure there will be universal agreement on: that the decision to go to war is not a “default” decision, but one that must be taken only after meeting a very high burden of evidence in its favor. Going to war is not simply one option among many, but an option of severe consequences and very grave import. As I have written on my own site, embarking on a war is like entering a dark room blindfolded.

Yet to say this is not to say that opposition to the Iraq war had no case to make. The debate was not and should not have been judicial in nature, in which the entire burden of proof rests on one side and none at all on the other. If it was true that the administration needed to make an exceptional case to go to war, it is also true that opponents of going to war needed to make a positive case for addressing the legitimate security concerns of the country by means short of war.

This was exactly the moral and religious conundrum that the authors of Sojourners magazine found themselves in. Before the invasion, Peter Ackerman and Jack DuVall wrote there that given the realities of Saddam and his regime, “anyone who opposes U.S. military action to dethrone him has a responsibility to suggest how he might otherwise be ushered out the backdoor of Baghdad.”

In my view, the case for making war against Saddam’s regime had to meet both of two criteria:

1. The traditional criteria of Just War theory of historic Christian thought, and

2. Demonstrate that the national-security interests of the United States would be served in a way that not toppling the regime would not serve.

I believe that the war did and does meet both criteria, but (begging your pardon for saying this again) that is a topic for another post Dean asked me to write. Here I want to point out that non-ideological, nonpartisan opposition to the Iraq war was also made on one of those two bases.

First, there were some who claimed that no adequate casus belli has been demonstrated for which war against Iraq was justified. Since one of the strong tenets of Just War theory is that war may be undertaken only for justified causes, the lack of adequate casus belli would undercut the war’s justification. There were others who claimed that even with just cause, the war would not be fought justly, that the destruction of innocent lives would be so great that it would overwhelm even the justice of the cause or the outcome. And finally, there were others who based their opposition on anticipating that the outcome of the war would prove unjust. These were oppositions based on Just War theory and such objections should be soberly considered by Christian people.

Second, there were some who claimed that the strategic interests of the United States would be ill served by invading Iraq and that Saddam’s threat could be contained in other ways. However, it was very rare that any of these objectors could describe those other ways, even when they included leading figures of previous Democratic or Republican administrations.

I want to explicate more on strategic thinking and how Just War theory relates to it – the “metaphysic” of the process – before dealing with the specifics of how the invasion of Iraq met both Just War and strategic criteria, but to honor Dean’s request for reasonably short essays I’ll stop here. The main thing I wanted to relate here was that it was possible reasonably to oppose the invasion of Iraq without allying oneself with America’s enemies or being an anti-American or anti-Bush ideologue. In the future I will write about why those objections fell short of persuasiveness and why I think the administration met the criteria test.

The War in Iraq -- Q and A with Bishop Klaiber of Germany

Bishop Walter Klaiber (pictured left) retired this past March after serving as a bishop of the United Methodist Church in Germany for the past 16 years. As a young man, he studied  with Ernst Kaesemann, one of the leading biblical scholars of the 20th century. He served as a professor, then director, of a theological school at Reutlingen. As bishop of the United Methodist Church in Germany, he joined with other global church leaders in Feb., 2003,  to issue a statement opposing the war. Sponsored by the World Council of Churches, the statement said, in part:

We cannot accept the stated objectives of a war against Iraq, as laid out by these governments, in particular the US. Pre-emptive military strike and war as a means to change the regime of a sovereign state are immoral and in violation of the UN Charter. We appeal to the Security Council to uphold the principles of the UN Charter which strictly limit the legitimate use of military force and to refrain from creating negative precedence and lowering the threshold for using violent means to solve international conflicts.

I asked Bishop Klaiber to share his thoughts about the war.

In Feb. 2003 you were one of 20 global church leaders who signed a World Council of Churches statement opposing the War in Iraq. What caused you to take this stand?

I signed the WCC statement against the war in Iraq out of two reasons.    

a) I was sure that the reasons which were given to justify the war were wrong.    

b) I was convinced that the necessary goals in the struggle against terrorism and for more democracy can not be achieved by a war against the Iraq.

What now? Would you favor an immediate U.S. withdrawal of troops or should U.S. troops remain until a new Iraqi government is established?

I fear that an immediate withdrawal of the troops would put the country into a chaos. Therefore, I think that the allies have to stay till there is a new Iraqi government established, although it is not easy to anticipate when this will be.

Because United Methodism is primarily a U.S. church in membership,has this war had any effect on the way United Methodists in Germany are perceived?

The Iraq war has had an ambivalent effect for the United Methodist Church in Germany. On the one side, we were challenged or even blamed because the president of the United States is a member of the United Methodist Church and the church has not taken action against his policy. On the other side, it was clearly stated in most publications that this policy of war is against the Social Principles of the United Methodist Church.

Has the United Methodist Church in Germany been active in peacemaking in relationship to this and other wars?

The United Methodist Church joined ecumenical efforts which tried to avoid or to end wars.

What else could you share with us about your thinking about the War in Iraq?

It is my hope and my prayer that there will be a solution for the political situation in Iraq which helps these people to live in peace.This war was begun against all evidences (and former Secretary of State Powell regrets deeply that he has been made an instrument of  such a policy) , but I hope that no longer the grass-root people on both sides - Iraqi civilians and American soldiers - will have to pay the price with their lives.

Grace and peace
Bishop Walter Klaiber

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.

Is opposing war partisan?

Tim Sisk has raised the issue of whether opposing the War in  Iraq is a partisan political activity. He was reacting to an event held at Venice United Methodist Church in Venice, Cal., which featured speeches by Cindy Sheehan, of Camp Casey fame, and Tim Goodrich, co-founder of Iraq Veterans Against the War, and music by Michelle Shocked (who rocks, by the way: She attends an African Methodist Episcopal Church and has sung for Sojourner Call to Renewal events ).

Tim is concerned about churches becoming involved in partisan political activities, and he thinks the event at Venice Church was one. He says he could perhaps understand an event in which the speakers were opposed to all war, but argues that an event which includes only speakers opposed to this particular war is one-sided and partisan.

Tim and the pastor of  Venice Church have had an extended conversation about this particular event (which was originally meant to include speakers who support the war as well as those who oppose it, except the pro-Iraq-War speakers did not show up) and about the appropriate role of the church in such discussions.

We here at Foundry Church have wrestled with similar questions. We have a very strong Peace with Justice group within the congregation who tend to be critical of this war. I --who am sadly not a pacifist--  opposed beginning this particular war, although I am perplexed about what to do now.  At the same time, our congregation includes a variety of viewpoints -- from pacifists, to those who oppose this particular war, to those who support this war, to those who just don't know what to think.

There are a number of issues here, some easier to think through than others:

1) When does opposition to a specific war become partisan? This question is easy, I think. I don't believe opposing a war is partisan. Those of us who remember the War in Vietnam recall that there were Democratic and Republicans who supported and who opposed the war, and that  it continued under administrations from both parties. If the War in Iraq is merely a Republican war, then we are in really, really big trouble. To say that opposing a particular war is partisan defines the war itself as a partisan war, which would be damning if it were true.

2) Here is a harder question: Should a church that includes people of diverse opinions sponsor a one-sided event? Yes, but only with certain understandings. Foundry's Peace with Justice mission has co-sponsored events that oppose the war. Our Peace with Justice mission  understands that others within the congregation may disagree, and that some group within Foundry Church may even choose to sponsor events with differing perspectives. But if groups within the church are not permitted to teach and advocate, you are left with either a silent church without discussion and discernment or lowest-common-denominator thinking. Those Christians within Foundry Church who oppose the war on the basis of their Christian convictions should be able to hold educational and mobilizing events  as part of their ministry. Christians who believe the war is justified should be able to do the same, but very carefully because our bias is against war.

3) Note that both viewpoints --for and against a war-- are not equal within the church. We need to remember that all Christians are called to be peacemakers. This is not optional. As the United Methodist Social Principles recognize, not all Christians are pacifists, but all Christians are called to pray and work for peace.  The burden of proof rests on those who advocate war,  and the commitment of even non-pacifist Christians is that war must be the absolutely last resort, never conducted for the sake of economic self-interest, and concluded as quickly as possible. Christians do well to seek to examine governmental arguments for war based on our commitment to peace and the principles of just war. Such questioning is not partisan, and the church ought to provide a context for this sort of questioning to happen. Our bias is against war and against every particular war, even when some may conclude that a particular war is a necessary evil. 

4) Disagreement must not be thwarted, so that those Christians and United Methodists who believe a particular war is justified and those who do not should both have the opportunity to express this opinion. This does not mean that all programs need to be balanced but that everyone has the opportunity to agree or disagree.

5) Our prayers must always be for peace, and, so far as I am concerned, Michelle Shocked can sing in my church any time she wants to. 

Bishop Schol calls us to action

We here in the Baltimore-Washington Conference have received the following letter from our episcopal leader, Bishop John Schol, concerning our response to Hurricane Katrina: (I have added comments.)

"When one part of the body suffers, we all suffer with it."
                                                      –1 Corinthians 12:26

Dear Sisters and Brothers,

As you have witnessed already, the news is not good and there is need for a sustained long term effort to rebuild and repair the breach that God’s people have suffered after Hurricane Katrina.

I have also been overwhelmed by the outpouring of compassion and gifts for those devastated by the hurricane that are already being received from United Methodists in West Virginia, Washington, D.C., and Maryland. I am blessed to serve with you in the Baltimore-Washington Conference.

I would also like to update you on things you may not be aware of.

1.      Initial reports indicate that we may have lost 22 United Methodist church buildings and that their congregations have been dispersed. This also means that pastors and other church workers are not receiving salaries. More than three quarters of a million dollars in apportionment income will probably be lost by the conferences affected by Hurricane Katrina.

2.      Gulfside Assembly, located on the Gulf Coast of Mississippi, which was built by African Americans to serve the Central Jurisdiction (the African-American jurisdiction created decades ago and now abolished within our denomination to maintain segregation) as a place of renewal and sacred space has been completely destroyed. We grieve the loss of Gulfside and the church buildings.

I would like the Baltimore-Washington Conference to be a leader in generosity in the coming days, weeks and months. There is no doubt in my mind that we have the capacity to practice extraordinary discipleship through our gifts and service that will go the second mile to help those that are suffering, pay pastor’s salaries, rebuild Gulfside and rebuild churches.

I invite you to make sure congregations are aware of the opportunities to serve and to share in their discipleship:

1.      The Conference is receiving offerings for the Bishop’s Appeal for Hurricane Katrina. ...This special appeal will be used through our United Methodist channels such as UMCOR and our mission partners in Mississippi and Louisiana to provide relief to the people, pastors and congregations. (Foundry will be receiving special offerings throughout the month of September.)

2.      I am sending every lead pastor a DVD with a special message from me for your congregation. I would like every church to show it this Sunday in worship or if you do not have the capacity, to show it before and after worship in an appropriate place. (This DVD will be shown and replayed before and after our services Sunday.)

3.      Explore how your congregation can help with health kits, school kits, and flood buckets. (Our Peace with Justice mission is compiling health kits. You are welcome to bring supplies with you Sunday. Find a list of materials needed here.) 

4.      A first response team from our conference is already on the way to Mississippi to help with the initial relief efforts. Additional teams will also go in the future. (Trainings for Volunteers in Mission will be held Sept. 21, 6-9pm, Baltimore Washington Conference Center; Oct. 1, 9am-1pm, Otterbein United Methodist Church, Hagerstown, Md.; and Oct. 15,  9am-1pm Mt. Zion United Methodist Church, Mechanicsville, Md.)

5.      Assist with relocation efforts. To assist with housing, jobs and other support call (202) 727-1000 or follow our web page.

6.  Worship resources are available at www.gbod.org. We will also have PowerPoint, prayers and resources available on our Web site as well in the near future.

7.   I have asked Rev. Wayne DeHart to be the point person for all of the various issues related to this disaster – fundraising, communication and information and relief efforts. Wayne can be reached at wdehart@bwcumc.org.

8.   Regularly check the Web site. Over the next several  days, you will find new and additional resources that you may use this Sunday and in the coming weeks.

I am grateful for you and your continued effort to serve. Together we will continue to make a difference for the ministry of Christ in our region.

Blessings,

Your brother and bishop, John

Last Sunday Foundry members  donated $9,318 for this special appeal. Thank you.

Foundry Child Development Center teacher Gwen Johnson is volunteering to help provide childcare for those hurricane  survivors  relocated here to Washington.

Also please read the action alert from the General Board of Church and Society. This is not a time for Congress to cut programs meeting human needs for the sake of additional tax cuts.

Foundry's minister of mission Jana Meyer is coordinating Foundry's efforts. Contact her if you want to help.

God in the labor movement -- Labor Day weekend with Michael Szpak: Part Three

The Rev. Dr. Michael Szpak, a clergy member of the Baltimore-Washington Conference, has spent his  ministry ministering within the labor movement. He has served as a liaison between labor unions and the religious community and as an organizer of church support for labor campaigns. He has agreed to discuss the relationship between United Methodism and labor this Labors Day weekend. His previous responses are here and here.

Question: Some might see labor organizing as political work more than ministry. How has your work on behalf of the labor movement and workers fulfilled your call to ministry?

Rev. Szpak: When explaining my ministry a starting point for me is the following Scripture: “...  in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself  ...” (II Cor. 5:19)

When I began the process of seeking ordination in the United Methodist Church, I had an initial interview with a member of the District Board of Ordained Ministry at my home.  When I told him that I believed that God was active in the labor movement, he advised me not to mention this belief in my upcoming meetings with the board. I am as convinced now as I was then that God is active and present in the labor movement. I have witnessed and continue to witness that reality in my ministry.   

God’s action in Christ takes place in the world and the church is constantly challenged to identify and respond to that action in the world.  Organized labor represents over 13 million working persons and millions of family members.  It is an arena in which God’s activity can be identified, and it is here that God has positioned me for ministry.  Living the culture of organized labor is a location that most United Methodist pastors have never experienced.  I have learnt during my ministry that organized labor is a context for ministry, and I am constantly assessing  where the Holy Spirit is leading my own ministry. The following are  a few of my own observations about organized labor as a context for ministry.

At their best, labor unions are committed to a vision of a just society where all persons are treated with dignity and respect.  This is an ethical goal which the union movement shares with the United Methodist Church, and upon which local United Methodist congregations and labor in local communities can develop relationship. Positions on so many moral issues represented in the Social Principles and the United Methodist Book of Resolutions are shared by labor union organizations.  This is a building block for relationship.

I have understood one particular  social teachings found in the Social Principles as a basis for my own ministry within organized labor.  In essence, my ministry makes real or incarnates various Social Principles of the United Methodist Church that speak to the rights of workers.  For example, Paragraph 163.B: '"Collective Bargaining" states,

We support the right of public and private (including farm, government, institutional, and domestic) employees and employers to organize for collective bargaining into unions and other groups of their choosing.  Further, we support the right of  both parties to protection in so doing and their responsibility to bargain in good faith within the framework of the public interest.  In order that the rights of all members of the society may be maintained and promoted, we support innovative bargaining procedures that include representatives of the public interest in negotiation and settlement of labor-management contracts, including some that may lead to forms of judicial resolution of issues.  We reject the use of violence by either party during collective bargaining or any labor/management disagreement.  We likewise reject the permanent replacement of a workers who engages in a legal strike.

Other sections of the Social Principles and Book of Resolutions address workplace justice concerns such as living wage, workplace health and safety, child labor, and justice for migrant farm workers.

Over the past 15 years that I have been appointed to an outreach ministry to organized lanor and have worked at the AFL-CIO national headquarters, I have facilitated the building of bridges between the national and local labor movement and the United Methodist Church and many local congregations around the United States. Through worker rights advocacy activities during strikes, lockouts, boycotts and union organizing campaigns, I have assisted labor unions and their members to confront corporations, many that are global in nature, who would destroy their union or rob them of dignity and respect. 

My ministry has repeatedly experienced the negative approaches employers utilize to dissuade workers from unionizing their workplace.  From a Wesleyan lens, I believe these employer actions would be considered morally deficient, if not reprehensible.

Henri Nouwen said that “ministry means the ongoing attempt to put one’s search for God, with all the moments of pain and joy, despair and hope, at the disposal of those who want to join this search but do not know how.”  Through my ministry I have learnt much about the social justice commitments of union leaders and activists and the sacrifices they make to maintain those commitments.  I have consistently struggled and experimented with ways to be present to those who want “to join in this search” for God within the context of the union movement.

In my ministry, I have observed that both the United Methodist Church and labor unions are mass organizations.  They are both deeply involved with meeting needs and serving as witnesses to the greater good. From a church perspective, I would say, using Social Gospel and Liberation Theology language, that they are both seeking the Kingdom of God.  If The United Methodist Church is to intentionally involve itself with the welfare of masses of people it is quite natural that the Church should have a deep and on-going relationship with the labor movement at all levels. 

I have found that, although many union members, leaders and activists are already church members, a  significant number are not or are dissatisfied with their current church relationship.  Many union leaders have had little contact with the church or are uncomfortable approaching pastors.  Some have felt or actually been rejected when they have asked the church for assistance during severe , emotionally, and  spiritually depleting traumas in the lives of their members. These  traumas are the result of strikes, lock-outs, workers discriminated by employers while engaged in union representational/organizing activities, and so many other outrageous and morally questionable employer tactics to discourage and defeat unionization efforts.  Moreover, union activists who are members of United Methodist local congregations often feel that the subject of unions is “off limits” in the church.

On the local church level, I am convinced that we can be  intentional about identifying labor union members in our congregations and seek to understand their attitudes to the union and other workplace concerns.  We will meet other union members as we witness to the worker justice teachings of the United Methodist Church in local communities.  As we  are present to those workers who are seeking to form or maintain their unions and are experiencing employer opposition, we can begin to develop on-going relationships. 

I believe that the labor movement offers the United Methodist Church a real mission opportunities.  The labor movement is an instrument through which the church can contact and develop relationships with persons who share so many of our moral commitments.  The labor movement is a window that opens onto the lives of  so many men, women, and persons of diverse economic levels and cultures.  It is an arena where the Holy Spirit beckons and social and relational evangelism approaches can be pursued.   

There can be no doubts that the United Methodist tradition points to our historical roots in the labor movement.  The workers whom Wesley discovered in the mines of Britain and factory villages were considered nothing more than animals. These workers came to Jesus, Wesley equipped them for ministry, and many became active participants and leaders in British labor movement.  For those in the Wesleyan tradition, the labor movement offers a broad range of possibilities for ministry.  If we seek to develop an evangelistic approach that addresses the lives of union members and those who desire union representation in their workplace, we will stamp ourselves as descendants of John Wesley.

In a 1948 letter to religious leaders, Dr. Cameron P. Hall, a Methodist Church leader and executive secretary of the Federal  Council of Churches of Christ in America Department of Church an Economic Life, asked: “What should and can the churches do with, for, and through their members who are potential or actual leaders and members of labor unions?”  This question is still valid today.

I believe that the starting point for all Christian ministry is Jesus, and, as Jesus ministered to those on the margins, so the church is called to do the same.  Labor union leaders, union activists, union members, and workers who are seeking workplace justice are on the margins of our. society. They present both a challenge and an opportunity for ministry.  Wesley taught the value of small groups whose members support each other on their journey and provide an opportunity for accountability. From what I have experienced in the labor movement, groups modeled after covenant discipleship groups may be a way to integrate spirituality into the lives of union activists and members who are deeply engaged in workplace justice advocacy.

To be continued ...

Methodists have been at the forefront of workers' rights -- Labor Day weekend with Michael Szpak: Part Two

The Rev. Dr. Michael Szpak (left), a clergy member of the Baltimore-Washington Conference, has spent his entire ministry since his ordination in 1989 working within the labor movement. He has served as a liaison between labor unions and the religious community and as an organizer of church support for labor campaigns. He has agreed to discuss the relationship between United Methodism and labor this Labors Day weekend.

Question: The United Methodist Church in the United States has historically been very supportive of labor, the right to bargain collectively, and fair treatment of workers. How did this support develop?

Rev. Szpak: The following is a short overview in very broad strokes of the development of United Methodist Church support for collective bargaining and worker justice.

United Methodism emerged from the coal pits, from poor industrial workers in the cities and farm workers in the fields of Britain.  It is historically accurate to say that in Britain working people were the base of the Methodist revival.

Understanding this, it should come as no surprise that Methodism had a great influence in the British labor movement and, in fact, Methodists played leading roles.  A defining moment for Methodist labor activism occurred in 1820, in the village of Tolpuddle in south England. Five Methodists, three of whom were local preachers, comprised the six “Tolpuddle Martyrs” who were convicted and sent to Australia as convicted  prisoners and labor agitators simply because they organized a union of agricultural workers. The “Tolpuddle Martyrs” are remembered annually in an event at Tolpuddle by the  Trade Union Council and the Methodist Church in Britain.

Historically, there has always been a relationship between United Methodists in the United  States and organized labor, but especially since the end of the 19th century with the rapid growth of industrialization and its effects on working people. However, the relationship has not always been on the best of terms.

In 1908 a miner wrote to the editor of the Methodist Episcopal New York Christian Advocate: “During my fourteen years’ work in the mines only one minister ever visited the mine in which I worked.  For eight years I sat under the preaching of one minister.  He was never in my place of labor once. Yet in a very just strike of four months he was the workingmen’s stoutest opponent.  His talk against the union simply showed his crass ignorance of the situation and we won.  He missed his opportunity.  Is it strange that we had more faith in the miners’ leader than in the minister?”

Nevertheless, there would always be efforts by  United Methodists to bring the church into relationship with labor.

It must be remembered that the Methodist Episcopal Church split over the issue of slavery in the 1830s.  The Methodist Episcopal Church South created by the split was born from and nurtured by slavery directly contrary  to Wesley’s teachings.  In the chattel slave system there are no workers rights. The labor rights tradition of  the United Methodist Church was strongest in the Methodist Episcopal Church and very weak in the Methodist Episcopal Church South.  The adoption of the Social Creed by the Methodist Episcopal Church in 1908 was a defining event that shaped United Methodist Church involvement with organized labor and worker justice concerns in the United States for years to come.

As industrialization in steel, mining, and textiles rapidly expanded, employers used child labor extensively; 12-hour shifts, seven days a week were acceptable; industrial accidents with no compensation for the worker, unsafe working conditions and poverty wages were the rule of the day.  When workers organized to address these deplorable and inhumane conditions, employers used armed violence to suppress workers who sought justice in their workplaces through union organization.

The Social Creed positioned the Methodist Episcopal Church on the side of workplace justice, and was the first such statement by a Protestant denomination. The Social Creed outlined the Methodist Episcopal Church’s concern for working people and the effects of industrialization.  The statement called for a living wage, a maximum six-day week, protection of working women, the elimination of child labor, safeguards against occupational injury and disease, unemployment, accident and old age insurance, and the right of labor to organize and bargain collectively. 

The 1908 Social Creed of Methodism stated:   

The Methodist Episcopal Church stands –
For equal rights and complete justice for all men in all stations of life.
For the principle of conciliation and arbitration in industrial dissensions.
For the protection of the worker from dangerous machinery, occupational diseases, injuries, and mortality.
For the abolition of child labor.
For such regulation of the conditions of labor for women as shall safeguard the physical and moral health of the community.
For the suspension of the “sweating system.”
For the gradual and reasonable reduction of the hours of labor to the lowest practical point, with work for all; and for that degree of leisure for all which is the condition of the highest human life.
For a release for [sic] employment one day in seven.
For a living wage in every industry.
For the highest wage that each industry can afford, and for the most equitable division of the products of industry that can ultimately be devised.
For the recognition of the Golden Rule and the mind of Christ as the supreme law of society and the sure remedy for all social ills.

The Methodist Federation for Social Service (MFSS), now the Methodist Federation for Social Action (MFSA), established in 1907 championed worker justice issues within the Methodist Episcopal Church over half a century. Two MFSS leaders, Frank Mason North and Harry Ward, were instrumental in fashioning the Social Creed. Other Methodist Episcopal Church leaders joined MFSS chapters and worked to implement the Social Creed.

The Great Steel Strike of 1919 involved over 350,000 workers at U.S. Steel Corporation around the Pittsburgh area who attempted to obtain better working conditions.  Methodist Episcopal Church Bishop Francis J. McConnell was chairman of the Commission of Inquiry of the Interchurch World Movement investigating causes of the strike and the conditions of the steel workers.  This was the first fact-finding report on a labor dispute conducted by a group of religious leaders. Though the workers lost their strike, the report issued by the Commission helped to abolish the 12-hour day in the steel industry.  It was another defining moment for the evolvement of the United Methodist witness to the rights of workers to obtain the recognition of their unions and amelioration of oppressive conditions.

Charles Webber, a Methodist minister, became MFSS field secretary in 1936 and served as executive secretary until 1943.  During this period he  worked to support  workers organizing unions around the country, linked MFSS chapters to on going labor struggles and established committees of local clergy to support strikers in areas like Detroit and Flint, Mich.  In 1946, after leaving MFSS, Webber, a member of the New York East Conference, was appointed by Bishop Bromley Oxnam to be chaplain to organized labor after he was elected president of the Virginia Congress of Industrial Orga