Institute on Religion on Democracy Report Written By Bush Campaign Worker

http://chuckcurrie.blogs.com/chuck_currie/2007/01/institute_on_re.html

Just read this piece of commentary on UCCtruths.com:

Regardless of your opinion of the IRD or the NCC, the report raises serious questions about the National Council of Churches and it’s sources of funding. Bob Edgar, like the UCC’s John Thomas, doesn’t like to have his motives questioned and will undoubtedly respond by claiming a right-wing conspiracy instead of actually explaining why the National Council of Churches hasn’t been more transparent about it’s sources of funding. In September, 2005, the United Methodist Church (Edgar’s own church and the largest member of the National Council of Churches) sent a “letter of concern” to the NCC over the departure of the Antiochian Orthodox Church and called for “immediate steps to understand” why the Orthodox church left the NCC. In the same letter, the United Methodist Church also expressed it’s “disdain” over a politically loaded fund raising letter that Edgar sent out in June of 2005.

Edgar’s initial reaction to the criticism he received from the letter was to suggest a conspiracy by “those who try to dilute our witness and mislead our friends by suggesting that the National Council of Churches is a partisan, left-leaning organization.” However, his tune changed after the UMC letter. Thomas Hoyt, then President of the National Council of Churches, said that Edgar now “has acknowledged that the letter was sent from the development office without proper review.”

The IRD, on the other hand, has a clear political agenda. Unlike the National Council of Churches, their agenda is transparent and their sources of funding are very public. But the biggest difference between the NCC and the IRD is their constituency. Whether you love them or hate them, the IRD’s members voluntarily and directly subscribe to their values and principles. The 45 million members that the NCC claims to represent are so buried under multiple levels of bureaucracy between their local churches, associations, conferences and denomination offices that there is literally no connection between the NCC and it’s members. Further, since the NCC claims to speak with a prophetic voice on a range of issues, it has a moral obligation to publicly disclose it’s sources of funding and political alliances – but it does not. At a minimum, the IRD report provides a level of transparency that the NCC won’t disclose on it’s own.

God forbid a former Bush staffer from finding a better boss.

As to the NCC, I think IRD is asking the wrong central question. They are asking whether or not the NCC is representative of the member bodies. The correct question is whether or not NCC's views and positions are correct and arrived at by due process, as understood spiritually and by the NCC's own rules.

The Book of Discipline restrictive rules of the United Methodist Church forever protect the Confession of Faith, which provides that war is incompatible with Christian teaching. I don't believe that the majority of United Methodists agree with that position. Indeed, in the part of the Discipline that can be changed, some version of the just war theory has been enacted by the church. However, that enactment can't modify or rescind the Confession of Faith.

I have seen polls in which the majority of United Methodists support capital punishment, in opposition to the church's official stance. However, I think the official stance is correct.

From 1939 until 1968, African-American Methodists were forced to be in the segregated, nation-wide Central Jurisdiction. Stories abound of Black children having to pass nearby White Methodist camps and drive hundreds of miles into Arkansas to find their own camps. It was the leadership on the whole rather than those in the pews that ended such disgrace. The leadership election process should be open and fair, but representing someone's best interest often means voting against what they want and for what they need.

The criticisms of how the NCC is run is another matter and in that regard, the NCC has often shot itself in the foot. It does have a tremendous problem with accountability, organization, candor, fiscal responsiblity and more which I see as distinct issues from the matter of being representative.

Good point, Joel. However, the question of whether or not the NCC truly represents its claimed membership is relevant when the NCC involves itself in political matters. If the NCC's position on an issue is presented as being representative of the views of 45 million believers (granted, I don't know how often this is either explicitly or implicitly claimed), the IRD is right to question that claim.

Eric,

Well, Congress is suporting the war in Iraq. Are they representing constituents' views? The National Rifle Association put forth views on the ATF some years back that weren't representative. I don't believe the NRA indicated that a lot of its membership was uneasy with several of its views and tactics.

The organization that Ted Haggard led had similar problems being representative.

I think it can be appropriate to point out when views aren't representative, but there is nothing inherently wrong with leadership making decisions that offend constituent churches, for they can withdraw, withhold money, protest or whatever. Liberals and conservatives tend to regard the others' views as political rather than faith when they disagree. So, a conservative might say abortion is a faith issue but Iraq is political. Vice-versa for liberals. That's not logical.

Joel,

To a rough approximation, I do believe that Congress is representative of Americans' views on the war in Iraq. A large majority of Americans supported it to begin with, as did a large majority of Congress. From what I've seen in polls, most Americans (myself included) now want to see us disentangle ourselves from Iraq, but not in a way that will cause even more problems in the future, and Congress is seeking that same goal.

The NRA may indeed make arguments which are not representative of its membership, but they must be representative more often than not or else they will lose members. It is clearly not as easy for a church to withdraw from the NCC as it is for an NRA member to cancel his membership. From what I understand, the NCC's critics argue that on controversial issues they more often than not are *not* representative of their claimed membership.

It is absolutely the prerogative and even the responsibility of church leadership to teach unpopular (but Biblically sound) principles to their flocks. However, when that leadership purports to represent their flock in the political arena, that's a different matter.