Ugh, how utterly depressing. There is a passionate and ardent counter-revolution within the UMC to prevent it from becoming a wing of the progressive left. But these type of conferences seriously undermine those efforts. If there is a consolation, it's that this conference is only speaking for the Northeast, and not the entire denomination. This conference is still subordinate to the General Conference which has not - at least, not yet - gone down this course.

Josh, I could not agree more. Recently, after my Grandmother's burial at the family's Methodist Church in rural Posey County, Indiana, I had an opportunity to speak with the pastor. Still something of a circuit rider (he pastors three rural churches), his perspective is that of which you speak - a passionate ardent counter-revolution while following Christ. Unlike the UCC, I truly believe there is a deep rift between what the leadership of the UMC wants and what the faithful by and far believe.

If you Google Israel poverty, you'll find that those figures come directly from the Israeli gov't.

From the BBC:
"Israel's economic growth has forged a wider gap between the rich and the poor, and in so doing the otherwise welcome prosperity has had the peculiar effect of undermining some of the values that used to unite the country's people.

The government's own figures reveal that one in three children in Israel live in poverty, an indication that values such as social justice and solidarity are being eroded."

Too bad the New England Conference didn't think of providing that link. You'll note my issue is not with claiming there are poor in Israel - it is with how the Task Force assessed the issue of poverty and the the Task Force's claim that West Bank settlements are the proximate cause of this poverty.

"The occupation harms Israelis as well. The expense of wars and military occupation is draining the Israeli economy and having a negative effect on its society as a whole. Today, 1.6 million Israelis (nearly a quarter of the population) live in poverty(1)."

I'm not sure one can quibble too much with the first two sentences. They did not need to include that last sentence, at least without further documentation.

And while I think taking aim at Volvo for producing the vehicle that the Israeli Army chooses to use when bulldosing Palestinian homes is bizarre, I'm happy to see the UMC take a position similar to the Vatican's with respect to Israel's occupation of the Palestininian Territories.

Excuse us for learning the tools of survival, as you sit in your lap of luxury, JohnS.

Josh,

Unfortunately, large aspects of the counter-revolution would just make United Methodists a wing of the Republican party, or a rubber stamp for all views in favor of our current Iraq policies or ridiculing the notion of global warming. What would be the improvement there?

Anyway employment of the term "progressive left" is the lazy way of addressing a very complex matter. There are those of us in the denomination who tend toward classical understandings of Christianity, but not rigidly so, and some of us tend toward progressive politics and some are more conservative. Stanley Hauerwas rejects progressive Chritian thought but is a pacifist and rejects capitalism. There are those such as Bishop Will Willimon who might be considered radical traditionalists. That is, they have a high veiew of Scripture, call Christians to sacrificial living and obedience to Christ but who also believe that the government has a role to play in fighting poverty.

As for membership declines, two things should be noted:

1. Attendance has held pretty steady for the past 15 years, in contrast to membership.

2. There has been a seismic shift in the attitude of church leadership in cleaning up rolls. Once, removing living members was often heavily discouraged. Now, the thinking is more that if folks haven't connected to the church in quite some time, it is appropriate to get them off the rolls. The majority of the drop in membership in Oklahoma is the removal of people inactive for years, not disgruntled people walking out on the church.

I would also like to note that some of that ardent counter-revolution has been tied to the despicable Richard Mellon Scaife, as well as to Henry Ahmason, supporter of Christian recontructionism that calls for the execution of Christians who don't toe the line on certain issues. There have also been strong ties to right-wing death squads and support for torture. A good case can be made that many of those counter revolutionaries associated with IRD worship American military power rather than God. I could go a year or two in church and be in less trouble for failing to propose any mission projects than if I supported removing the American flag from the church.

To the extent you are implying that progressives aren't real Christians, then such standard must be applied to the counter-revolutionaries as well. Rather than labels, I see it as coming down to God's sovereingy; such can be rejected by either progressives or traditionalists. People of various ideologies and theologies struggle with that -- with whether life is about God's purposes or about human endeavor. Someone with all the "right" moral views could easily be the same person involved in redlining, or supporting "renditions" of terrorism suspects to foreign countries. As pastor, I have long-noted that the more frequently people have a strict moral code with respect to marriage, "family values", acceptable books and movies, etc., the more likely it is that they employ nasty stereotypes of Arabs, or use terms such as "n---er rig" or "J-- them down." That doesn't mean that sexual morality is false or umimporant, but it does mean that Christianity can't be narrowed to just a few buzz words. All of us struggle with significant blind spots.

It was a delight to attend God Blog '05, but the fact that most there seemed to consider me unfaithful or unbelieving was rather encouraging, for too many confused being sure of God's Word with being sure of themselves, At first it was disappointing that the leadership didn't show interest in me making a return trip. But then I realized that I constantly struggle to understand the difference between what makes sense to or appeals to me and what God wants for my life and for the world.

Most of those in leadership are absolutely confident that their beliefs and God's Word are 100% in accord. What I have is "assurance" that I am forgiven rather than certainty that I am right.
I found your views in favor of online gambling abhorrent, but I wouldn't accuse you of turning the church over to gambling interests.

If you knew me, I think you might be more inclined to say there is a place for a variety of perspectives in the United Methodist Church, including progressives such as myself. I don't think you want to be lumped with Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson and yet you seem to negatively stereotype those on the left as all being of the same ilk Years ago you made the allegation that United Methodists were more interested in ordaining gays than serving Christ. I never saw that you proved that to be the case, but simply threw that out as a cheap bomb. From my own experience with annual conference, church legislation and resolutions connected to controversial issues has rarely accounted for more than 3-8% of Conference time.

That said, if you run for public office, I'll support you. Despite the fact that now and then I think you are "full of it" you have an integrity level far above politicians in either party.

Excuse us for learning the tools of survival, as you sit in your lap of luxury, JohnS.

Who exactly is this "us" your speaking for, IsraeliJosh? The majority of Israelis continually favors withdrawing from occupied territories in exchange for peace. And I wouldn't exactly consider my NYC apartment the "lap of luxury."

I could be wrong, but I believe Joel is referring to the Scaife-funded Institute on Religion and Democracy, which employs networks of ultraconservative "renewal groups" to "transform" mainstream churches. It was initially founded to support Reagan's aggressive anti-Communist policies in Central America.

Joel,

I would hope that you can discern the irony in which your comment simultaneously stereotypes "large aspects of the counter-revolution" - accurate ones, to some degree - but rejects equally applicable stereotypes of the progressive left. My use of the phrase of "progressive left" is far from lazy; it was a deliberate and purposeful use of the phrase. For a lengthy and in-depth discussion of the phrase, and my reason for using it, see the archives of ITA over the past month.

Soon after you built up a straw man by writing,

"To the extent you are implying that progressives aren't real Christians..."

"It was a delight to attend God Blog '05, but the fact that most there seemed to consider me unfaithful or unbelieving..."

If you knew me, I think you might be more inclined to say there is a place for a variety of perspectives in the United Methodist Church, including progressives such as myself.

"Since its inception, the UMC has taken stands on social issues of the day, yet it has somehow managed to remain a big tent of sorts. After all, both the Bushes and Clintons have membership in the UMC, and it is not uncommon for UMC churches to span the spectrum of beliefs."

Finally, you end with this curious allegation

Years ago you made the allegation that United Methodists were more interested in ordaining gays than serving Christ.

The bottom line is that I believe this to be an erroneous move on the part of the New England Conference. It mirrors a string of similar recommendations and resolutions that suggest a distinct ideological and world view shift within the UMC.

The UMC backed away from divestment only because of bullying from AIPAC and friends. The fact of the matter is that many Christians do not support Israel because of its egregious human rights violations. Those Christians who do support Israel do so out of a gross misreading and misapplication of the Old Testament, not out of any genuine concern for or understanding of Jews or Judaism, particularly the history of anti-Semitism. To suggest that Judaism is about the destruction of an entire society is clearly anti-Semitic (as are the claims on this site than Dan Brown is a liar and that Judas was a traitor). There is plenty of historical and archaeological evidence to back this up.

As for the West Bank claims, they definitely make sense: all of the money that Israel has wasted, wastes, and will waste on a what fundamentalist Jews and Christians perceive as a God-given mandate to "reclaim Judea and Samaria" is an enormously expensive project that does nothing to improve Israel's security, and at the same time fleeces U.S. taxpayers. Yet the Christians on this site obviously support this policy, and scream "liar!" whenever someone questions it, because they believe that Jews have a God-given mandate to destroy the lives and livelihoods of non-Jews unlucky enough to be living there. Can't you ever see the world through a non-Old Testament lense?

Josh,

I wrote "large aspects" -- a qualifier -- and you wrote "progressive left" without qualification. My point is that the IRD is engaging in a "take no prisoner" assault on all who disagree with it, often in nasty, personal ways such as the letter Mark Tooley wrote to now-Bishop Will Willimon, in which he implied that Willimon was a weakling. If I hadn't believed what I wrote, then I would be raising a straw man. If I misunderstood what you were trying to do, then I simply reached an erroneous conclusion, which at most would require a plea of guilty to the charge of being wrong. In other words, the straw man accusation is an assertion of intentional deviousness that I'm not willing to accept in this case. I'd rather be considered sincerely wrong than dishonest. :-)

It is the claim of many IRD associates that liberals should be sued in court for church property and that such is Biblically proper because the injunction against lawsuits doesn't apply inasmuch as the liberals aren't Christians. Indeed, the IRD and other partners in the counter revolution have aggressively pushed articles telling church folks how they might gain control of their property and leave the UMC, or in the alternative, to agitate for separation. Since on the face of it you seemed to be acting as cheerleader for these groups per se, as opposed to embracing their stance on specific issues, it isn't entirely illogical for me to question whether or not you desire a diversity of opinion in the denomination.

My impression was always that you had fallen away from the United Methodist Church. Indeed, you seemed to downplay what you could get out of church services, emphasizing that the church is a human institution. I always took it that you grounded your faith via small group encounters. This is the first time I'm aware of you describing yourself as currently United Methodist. I haven't been reading as much lately, but all I can recall from you was your move away from Methodism into non-denominational settings.

Send me your archived writings from your old blog. I feel quite comfortable that my quote of you with respect to ordaining gays is correct or at least in the ballpark. In the meantime, I'll try to go through my old notes from 2003-04. Indeed, once before I was looking for the quote and remember wading through your archives month-by-month to find it, inasmuch as using search engines wasn't getting me there. I'm 99% certain that I am right.

So, yes, I saw what you wrote about the "big tent." However, with the "slide into liberalism" reference, I could hardly take it for granted that you consider the big tent as a positive development. I took it that you were recognizing fact more than expressing support for diversity of opinion within the church. Clearly, as to society and personal friendships you value such difference of opinion, but in as much as you have asserted that truth is knowable (I believe it is knowable if God chooses to reveal it), I could also assume that you believe you know what is truth in Christianity and might prefer that the church reflect only those views, which would make the big tent impossible.

As far as GodBlog05, I was treated very well and encountered very, very little animosity. However the tone was definitely one of "liberals are destroying" the world. I hardly felt persecuted and I'm a little surprised that you see it that way. Yet such is easier to assert than to disprove. Now there could be some situational defensiveness, but there is a difference between being a conservative growing up in a conservative state and a liberal growing up in an even more conservative state.

Finally, I believe I was misled by some GodBlog05 leaders to believe that '06 would be more broadly representative of classical Christianity; that is, of those such as myself who affirm the historic creeds. I see that as being "snowed" rather than persecuted.

Continuing on, the fact is that conservatives have been doing better at winning battles over the United Methodist Discipline language -- a development that I find good in some cases, bad in others. Opposition to war has been considerably toned down. Opposition to abortion has been strengthened. They have succeeded in moving a "non-creedal" church more toward the creedal. Opposition to homosexuality has been greatly strengthened. With respect to organization, many church offices have been moved from the North, East and West to the South. A lot of training seminars and curriculum have shifted toward a more conservative stance. Up to 24% of all United Methodist seminary students are trained at Asbury, a conservative non-United Methodist seminary in the Wesleyan tradition.

As for the counter-revolution, your idea would be right if their agenda was simply to keep the left from dominating. They want far more. Not only that the right would dominate but achieve outright victory in schism (they dishonestly call it amiacable separation).

When I write that you are using "progressive left" in a lazy way, I mean that you are taking a very complex matter and reducing it to labels and seemingly ignoring a broad range of matters other than theology or ideology that have weakened the denomination. Lack of commitment to Bible study, covenant discipleship, mission and evangelism has afflicted left and right alike because for too many, being Methodist is a status rather than a Christian way of life.

I don't agree with all of the above referenced Conference resolutions as being on target. On the other hand, the rabidly anti-Palestinian views expressed by many on the right don't impress me either. Nor was I impressed when an Oklahoma delegate got up and insisted that the United States never ever engages in torture. What I do note is the tendency of each side to believe that it has "principles" and the other side has an "agenda."

I think you know my views pretty well and I consider you a true blogging friend. On the other hand both of us at times may assume we know more than we actually do about how the other will come down on a particular issue. My point is the near-impossibility of understanding the heart of another's faith and soul via the Internet.

So you're United Methodist! I can't think of anyone that I'd rather have in the membership.

Josh,

Perhaps I should put it in more personal terms. If the counter-revolutionaries were to get their way, I would, at best, be ineligible for continued appointment, and at worst, subject to defrocking by trial. That does indeed touch a nerve with me.

Further, there are defintely differences in levels of dignity and decency displayed by the conservative reformers. The late Dr. William Hinson (First in Houston), with whom I corresponded, was genuinely grieved at the thought that people he considered sincere but wrong would be defrocked. Many others, though, display a glee that reminds me of the death-watch parties in Huntsville, Texas.

While the "counter-revolutionaries"' views should be welcome, the litmus tests they propose for pastors and seminary professors are incompatible with the idea of a big tent.

Volvos don't knock down houses, people do.

On a more serious note, Jake B wrote:

Those Christians who do support Israel do so out of a gross misreading and misapplication of the Old Testament, not out of any genuine concern for or understanding of Jews or Judaism, particularly the history of anti-Semitism.

While there are some Christians who support Israel for religious reasons, I believe there are far more who, like me, primarily sympathize with Israel as a Western democracy which has repeatedly been forced to defend its right to existence against attacks from its anti-democratic neighbors.

(as are the claims on this site than Dan Brown is a liar and that Judas was a traitor)

Hmm...not sure what you're talking about there, Jake. Dan Brown is an author, and "The Da Vinci Code" was a work of fiction. And I really don't know what your point is about Judas.

Josh,

You wrote:

"I do feel as though I know you to some degree, but either way I do not need to know you to think that the UMC is a place for a variety of perspectives. Indeed, I do think that and wrote the following this very week:
'Since its inception, the UMC has taken stands on social issues of the day, yet it has somehow managed to remain a big tent of sorts. After all, both the Bushes and Clintons have membership in the UMC, and it is not uncommon for UMC churches to span the spectrum of beliefs.'"

I still haven't heard anything from you how one can unite support for the counter-revolutionaries (who mostly want to establish litmus tests, loyalty oaths and doctrinal standards that would purge or defrock liberal clergy) and your support for diversity within the United Methodist Church. Surely you must understand that both can't be accomplished.