Theocracy or Justice?

I was just reading an interesting comment left at Wesley Blog:

"When the Religious Right wants to inform its politics with its theology, it's called Theocracy.

"When the Religious Left wants to inform its politics with its theology, its called Justice.

"Yes, some things *are* that simple.

"Now I happen to lean a bit left politically, and greatly prefer the political agenda of Wallis to Dobson on almost every issue, but there is a great deal of hypocrisy in what some people label as a theocratic agenda, especially when it comes to the Iraq war. Bush gets condemned for following religious leaders in many areas, AND condemned for not following his own church's leaders objection to the war."

Perhaps this brother is speaking with some irony, but I would venture to disagree with the idea there is no difference between the religious right's desire to exercise political power and control, and the religious left's social gospel, pacifism and internationalism.

According to the Statement of Values of the religious left Christian Alliance for Progress those of us who are religious progressives value the "Right Use of Power":

"Then they came to Jerusalem. And he entered the temple and began to drive out those who were selling and those who were buying in the temple, and he overturned the tables of the money changers and the seats of those who sold doves; and he would not allow anyone to carry anything through the temple...." (Mark 11:15-16)

Satan "...showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor; and he said to him. ' All these I will give you...' Jesus said to him. 'Away with you, Satan...'" (Matthew 4: 8-10)

"Jesus understood worldly authority. When he acted in the temple to throw out the money changers, he challenged powerful systems of purity codes and taxes that were oppressive. But this was an act of protest against injustice. While Jesus advocated a different social vision, he did not force others to accept this vision. Every year during Holy Week, we are reminded that the kingdom Jesus proclaimed was not to be brought about by force.

"Yet Jesus was powerful. He was filled with the power of the spirit. He used this power to bring healing miracles into the lives others. In his ministry Jesus showed us how God's power can help a just world emerge. As Christians and Americans, we strive to follow Jesus' example as we acknowledge that we are powerful, but as we also seek to avoid the seduction of power and the temptation to coerce others to our will. In the darkest and most frightening times, Jesus calmed and strengthened his followers, telling them "Be not afraid..." (Matthew 28: 10) Jesus shows us that we must reject fear and use the power of God that flows through us to protect the innocent and build justice in the world."

I don't see the religious left making the claim that only Christians should exercise political control in the United States. Ideally, most of us on the left hope to be one voice among many voices in a secular society. And, by the way, secularism with its protection diversity in religious expression has been a boon to religion of all denominations and faiths. Elements of the extreme religious right, on the other hand believe they are working to establish the 1000 year reign of Christ through seeking control of the Republican Party and all three branches of government. Not every conservative political project should be branded as "theocratic," to be sure, but those who claim the exclusive right to rule through divine right are theocratic.

As for Jim Winkler's call for the impeachment of the President, there are doubts even among the President's own party about the legality of certain of his actions. If Congress were independent enough to investigate the possibly unconstitutional misdeeds of this President, then perhaps the constitutional process of impeachment might make sense. If the President is innocent of "high crimes and misdemeanors," then, like Bill Clinton, he will be acquitted.

Remembering an African Lesbian Activist

This Memorial Day, I'm remembering Fanny Ann Eddy who was a lesbian activist and native of Sierra Leone in Africa. She was brutally murdered in the offices of the lesbian and gay organization she led in Freetown, Sierra Leone.

A short time before her death she gave this testimony to the United Nations Commission on Human Rights in Geneva. Fanny Ann's testimony and her life and death remind those of us in the western world that human rights and the rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender persons are very much live issues in Africa.

One of the ironies of the Anglican Archbishop of Nigeria's support for repressive legislation against LGBT persons is that he claims the struggle for LGBT rights is "unAfrican." In fact, much of the anti-gay legal structure and rhetoric in Africa stems from the old legal traditions of Great Britain and British colonialism. In the nineteenth century British law still called for death by hanging for persons convicted of "sodomy." It is this colonial legacy that Archbishop Akinola defends.

Episcopal Bishop Chane on Nigeria

Episcopal Bishop John Chane of Washington D.C. published this criticism of the Nigerian Anglican Archbishop. Take note that Bishop Chane challenges the American backers of Archbishop Akinola to justify their support of the Archbishop's denial of human rights to lesbian and gay persons.

More on this later. . .

Nigerian Oppression of Gay Persons

Andrew Sullivan's blog brings my attention to this piece from a British commentator. The right-wing think tank, Institute for Religion and Democracy (IRD), has been working closely with the Archbishop of Nigeria to promote schism in the Anglican Communion. They are using the same tactic on the United Methodist Church. Will African United Methodist Bishops support this kind of legal oppression of gay people in their own nations? My recollection is that we have a United Methodist Bishop in Nigeria.

IRD has been trying to promote African Christianity as more "Christian" than the U.S. Churches they are targeting. IRD itself relies on substantial funding by Howard Ahmanson whose wife sits on their board. Ahmanson has been associated with that wierd little group called Christian Reconstruction that wants to apply the death penalty (by stoning) to persons convicted of "homosexual behavior." IRD has defended the Nigerian Archbishop's position by suggesting that the law he backs is more humane than the death penalty allegedly applied by Islamic Africans.

I'll be writing more on this in coming days and provide some more links. In the meantime, take note that the Episcopal Bishop of Washington DC and the Canadian Anglican Church have been speaking out against the Archbishop of Nigeria's shocking position against the human rights of gay people. It seems to me that the Archbishop of Nigeria is likely to lose any claim to moral or theological "high ground" in the current conflict in the Anglican Communion between the progressive North American Anglicans and the so-called "orthodox" of the so-called "global south."

Recent Comments on Soulforce

Thanks for the comments, folks. It's nice to know folks are reading and thinking.

Shane over at Wesley Blog points out that I misunderstood his comments on Soulforce. He does not recommend Soulforce be arrested for simply showing up at General Conference, only if Soulforce disrupts the Conference.

Perhaps a little history is in order: Soulforce has been present at two United Methodist General Conferences--2000 and 2004. In both cases I was an eyewitness to the Soulforce actions. In 2000 there were nearly 200 Soulforce volunteers who were arrested in a peaceful demonstration OUTSIDE the General Conference. The arrests were orderly, police and demonstrators were treated with mutual courtesy, and no one was hurt. Soulforce had made a deliberate decision after negotiations with United Methodist officials, NOT to engage in an action that would disrupt the proceedings of the General Conference. Later, on another day that week, a group of United Methodist activists NOT RELATED to Soulforce conducted a disruption on the inside and were arrested. Understandably, there is confusion and rumors about what happened and who did what as this story is told and retold.

In 2004, Soulforce, again negotiating with United Methodist officials, did organize a 20 minute "disruption" of General Conference business. At the insistance of United Methodist officials and Soulforce negotiators, it was agreed that this "disruption" would be orderly and would be conducted with the safety of all concerned in mind, and there would be no arrests. United Methodist officials had no interest in repeating the arrests of the 2000 General Conference. The "disruption" was very little different from other breaks in Conference business. The Bishop presiding treated it as an ordinary recess from regular business, and many delegates, bishops and observers enjoyed the music and hymn-singing which were part of the demonstration.

Despite the anti-gay actions taken by the General Confence earlier that week, the demonstration affirmed that gay people are anything but anti-United Methodist. On the contrary, we affirmed our inclusion in God's community as delegates and demonstrators together sang a rousing chorus of the old Methodist hymn, "Marching to Zion."

Some reports of the event confuse the demonstration with other events happening during General Conference. There was a separate incident, for instance, in which a United Methodist clergyperson unrelated to Soulforce, impulsively shattered a communion chalice. This had nothing to do with Soulforce, but uninformed folks who would like to think of Soulforce as somehow "violent" sometimes confuse these incidents. The folks I know at Soulforce think very deeply about the meanings of nonviolence and violence, and genuinely seek to avoid violence of any kind.

Soulforce's Equality Ride

Shane over at Wesley Blog has issued a rather one-sided attack on Soulforce. Shane’s view is one-sided because he mentions only those colleges on the Equality Ride that chose to arrest the Soulforce Equality Riders rather than agree to dialogue with Soulforce, and he seems to recommend a similar course of action to the United Methodist General Conference.

Here is a link to a press release from Abiliene Christian University where both Soulforce Riders and University officials believe the Soulforce event yielded valuable, Christian dialogue. The Chicago Sun Times reports much the same about Soulforce’s visit to Wheaton College. In neither of these cases were there arrests or even complaints about anything untoward. Soulforce volunteers were able to deliver their message and to dialogue with students and faculty. Official positions did not change, but respectful dialogue occurred. Without such dialogue, meaningful change is likely not possible.

The Wheaton dialogue is an especially good example, because, as Soulforce leader Jake Reitan says, in many respects Wheaton has some of the harshest anti-gay policies of all the schools visited, forbidding students from even holding contrary opinions. Even here there was respectful dialogue (though Wheaton faculty and students are apparently not free to hold opinions contrary to the official doctrine of the school).

Shane takes the very unusual position that Soulforce volunteers should be arrested for simply showing up at the next General Conference. I don’t think the United Methodist Church wants to follow the example of Falwell’s ironically named Liberty University, rather than associate itself with the kind of openness to dialogue demonstrated by Abilene Christian University.

The Christian Century: Mark Noll on Slavery & Scripture

I'm subscribed to The Christian Century whose latest issue (May 2, 2006) contains an article by the evangelical scholar and Wheaton College professor, Mark Noll. Noll's article is titled "Crisis of Interpretation: Slavery and Scripture."

Noll does not make any explicit analogy between the controversy in the churches over slavery and the current conflict over homosexuality, but I cannot help but read his article in that light. Noll affirms what I've already learned on the subject--that the abolitionists were the folks who stood accused of abandoning biblical authority and the pro-slavery side occupied the "high ground" with the bible on their side. The Bible is loaded with pro-slavery prooftexts while the abolitionists could only appeal to general priciples of justice and humanity supported by the "golden rule."

The Civil War seems to many like ancient history, but the largest Protestant denomination in the United States, the Southern Baptist Convention, still bears a name that identifies them with what was the "biblical" (pro-slavery) side of the debate. My own denomination, The United Methodist Church, still bears some of the jagged scars of its own historic division into northern and southern denominations.

I don't know that Noll's article gives us any answers for the current battle over the Bible and homosexuality, but it ought to serve as a caution about how we approach the Bible. The mistakes of the past might make us more humble about the certainty of our positions in the present.

Wedding Plans Move Ahead

Wedding plans have been going forward for Jim and I. You see, we can be legally married in Canada. Turns out it's not a simple deal--lawyers, registrars, magistrates and all that--but they all treat us like it's a good thing we're doing, something to be congratulated. We've found the same thing visiting jewlers here in Madison to look for a pair of men's wedding bands. Today we bought tuxedos (on sale at Pennys), and the store clerk was also congratulatory. Its all been fun so far.

We haven't set the exact date as yet, but are planning a trip to Toronto. There we will see friends, a nice young gay couple who once lived together here in Madison. They emmigrated to Canada because Canadian immigration laws allow them the right to stay together, whereas U.S. law would have split them forcing one of them back to his country of birth.

I really don't want to leave the land of my birth, but it makes one wonder to see the liberty and respect gay and lesbian persons have in Canada (as well as Great Britain, Spain, South Africa and various other European countries). What's the problem with the USA? We seem to be lacking in religious freedom, since Fundamentalist Christians seem to expect the right to dictate the law for the rest of us.

From an Unrepentant Homosexual Awaiting Trial

Here is the United Methodist News Service report.
Here is a direct link to Memorandum 1041 which reports and explains the refusal to reconsider decision 1032.
Here is a link to Decision 1032.

Note that this appears to have been a 5-4 decision with not only two bitter written dissents, but a bitter concurring opinion. The Judicial Council has failed to resolve the underlying issue, but instead has aggravated the controversy over homosexuality.

General Conference 2004 spoke clearly in its reaffirmation of bars to lesbian and gay persons in the ordained ministry. It appears now that having "won" that contest, Methodist fundamentalists are emboldened to remove lesbian and gay persons from church membership as well.

This is not an exageration, but rather one of the consequences of decision 1032 mentioned by Judicial Council member Keith Boyette in his concurring opinion to the original decision 1032. In that concurring opinion Boyette argues as follows:

To adopt the position advanced by the rulings of law under review here and by those who dissent would result in the anomalous result that a person who could not affirm the vows of ¶ 217 being admitted to membership and then immediately being subject to discipline as required by ¶ 221. The Discipline does not require such a nonsensical result.

If one turns to one's handy Discipline and reads the paragraph 221 referenced by Mr. Boyette, one finds that the end of that road is either "repentance" or removal from membership either by church trial or voluntary withdrawl. The message of the Judicial Council to lesbian and gay United Methodists is "repent or get out."

Nor can one argue that this decision does not effect persons who attend moderate or progressive congregations that welcome lesbians and gays into membership. The trial process for lay persons is entirely out of the hands of local churches. Remember, folks, that in United Methodist polity the local church is NOT the basic unit of the church. One does not simply join the local church, one joins the United Methodist Church. The Discipline allows for anyone in or outside of a local congregation to bring charges against a lay member, a trial would be held not by the local church, but by the district--and all members of the local church in question would be excluded from serving on the trial court. One would not be judged by one's gay-friendly pastor and fellow congregants, but by strangers from other churches in the District in a proceeding presided over by the District Superintendant.

The Judicial Council has turned all "unrepenant homosexuals" in the church into "unindicted malefactors," into "criminals" who are only one formal complaint away from trial, conviction and removal from the membership of the church. For many this is a stigma that will be unbearable, and they will simply leave the church making trials unnecessary. For others this may be an opportunity for "voluntary redemptive suffering." Following the teachings of Gandhi and King they will stand firmly by the truth as they see it. If this is the law of the church, than the whole church must be brought to the realization of the consequences of their unjust and, yes, unChristian law. Let the church bear the burden of hundreds of trials! Actually, even one such trial is likely to prove to be a very heavy burden for the church indeed.

Such "voluntary redemptive suffering" would not be intended as suffering for its own sake. It would become redemptive as it would finally bring the church to the knowledge of the truth that lesbian and gay persons are God's children too!