Curious Sheep
Originally uploaded by paynehollow.
DALLAS, Texas (AP) -- A group of Methodist ministers from across the nation launched an online petition drive Thursday urging Southern Methodist University to stop trying to land George W. Bush's presidential library.
The petition, on a newly created Web site, http://www.protectsmu.orgexternal link, says that "as United Methodists, we believe that the linking of his presidency with a university bearing the Methodist name is utterly inappropriate."
"Methodists have a long history of social conscience, so questions about the conduct of this president are very concerning," said one of the petition's organizers, the Rev. Andrew J. Weaver of New York, who graduated from SMU's Perkins School of Theology.
=====
Good on those Methodists!
But, I'm not sure how big a deal it would be to have the W Library at Southern Methodist University. I mean, how much space could ten books take up?
39 comments:
I'm a moderately new reader of your blog through a "mutual" blogger. You beat me to the punch as I was going to blog about this as a proud Methodist who finds it funny that those inside his own religion would like to seperate from him!
My daughter called me this evening to tell me about this. She had already signed it. I immediately signed it and put up a link to the petition on my blog. It had almost 4,000 signatures when I signed it, but was rising rapidly. As a United Methodist and a Texan, the thought of Bush's library at SMU sickens me to no end.
Earlier, before the ouster of Pres. Robert Sloan, Baylor U. had been one of the contenders for this Bush pres. library. Although faculty and students rolled their eyes and mumbled some more about Sloan, there were no Baptist protests about Baylor trying for the presidential library. Sad. Good on the Methodists.
I keep hoping the UMC Bishops will excommunicate Bush and Cheney for violations of the Social Creed !
Ah. Bush bashing. Yawn.
Given the wide range of things that a person could and advocate doing to remove the cause of the Iraq war, we instead say, "We don't want your library, nyah, nyah, nyah! Guess that fixes you, George!"
Say, didn't Congress just fall under the control of the Democrats? Haven't they been rending garments and heaping ashes for years now saying that they would do anything and everything to stop this illegal and immoral war? Yes, I believe they have.
Yet when this same George of the homeless library prepares to send thousands of additional troops and the Democrats have a very effective way of blocking it (withhold funding), what do they do?
Nancy Pelosi:" Democrats will never cut off funding for our troops when they are in harm's way, but we will hold the president accountable."
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=2805714&page=1
Yes, indeed. "Hold the president accountable" and "never cut off funding". So far it seems to me that war protesters are all cut from the same bolt of cloth, do nothing and screech loudly about the president.
Thanks, all and welcome to bikingbrady. Come by any time.
Yes, E, there are many things we could do to stand up against Bush's war. And I'm all for them.
But you once told me yourself that perhaps the best thing we can do to stand against "Babylon" is laugh at 'em.
So, I'm laughing.
I've been highlighting the things that Congress is doing (and debating doing) on my blog. In order to prevent a GOP filibuster in the senate, any of these measures need 60 votes--10 Republicans. So far even the mildest of the actions, a non-binding resolution against the surge, has only 2 GOP co-sponsors. But, at least 8 GOP senators are considering voting for it. So, if that passes, it could free up momentum for stronger measures such as cutting off funding for the surge or even for the war altogether.
I'm not familiar with Methodist theology at all. Is there any possibility that someone could post maybe 2 or 3 things that Bush has done that goes against orthodox Methodist theology? Thanks.
This would be the main one, I reckon:
We believe war is incompatible with the teachings of Christ, and we claim that it is the primary moral duty of every nation to resolve disputes peacefully. We endorse the United Nations and commend all who pursue world peace through law.
Eben,
1) He had the gumption to sit behind the desk in the Oval Office knowing full well Al Gore rightfully won the election, and
2) He didn't crawl on hands and knees to the democratic minority leaders (after being selected rather than Ee-lected in 2000) and beg their forgiveness for being a Republican and a Christian.
The folks here will dredge up all kinds of OTHER reasons, but put them all in a pot and turn up the heat and this is what they'll boil down to- Hatred of Bush. It's as simple as that.
If the blog owner is the Christian he claims to be, as his recents posts on the sermon on the mount suggests, let him then take note of Matthew 5:22, 1 John 2:9&11, 1 John 3:15, 1 John 4:20. Better yet, he should just read all of 1 John.
I wish I could say I found the discussion at this sight enlightening, but the truth is, all I've seen here so far is a lot of back-slapping ideologues... with the possible exception of the bearded gentleman in the straw hat. He may be a leftist as well, but at least he's not wearing blinders. His arguments don't seem to emanate from an "eyes wide shut" stance on the issues. At least he's honest. Can't say the same for the rest.
I am curious about one thing, though, mister Trabue, how is it a man who performed better than Kerry while at Yale, even by the merest fraction of percentage points, without having read more than 10 books? Surely you don't buy the 'Bush is an idiot' line? Because that quip alone told me all I needed to know about you and your gaggle of back-slappers.
I would think that a preliminary step to declaring that Bush is incompatible with United Methodist teaching would be putting him on trial for being so. Although church trials of laymen are very, very rare, the Book of Discipline says that they can be done. Anyone (I think in his Conference, which is Central Texas) could initiate it simply by filing a complaint.
If convicted, he could be expelled from the United Methodist Church. In that case, the SMU protestors would have a solid argument for their perspective.
Thanks for the info, John.
Welcome to Payne Hollow, heron. I'd suggest, though, that if you don't find it enlightening here, you may want to better occupy your time.
As to your suggestion about reading Matthew 5 (or 1 John), you know that I have. We must balance the words of Jesus about not being angry with a brother with the words and actions of Jesus who threw the moneychangers out of the temple. There is a time and place for anger. Anger at those who'd hurt innocents is a justified anger, wouldn't you agree?
As to this statement:
"At least he's honest. Can't say the same for the rest."
I'll offer the same opportunity I always do: Show me where I've been dishonest and I'll gladly repent. Otherwise, these words are a bearing of false witness and shame on you.
Finally, as to hating Bush, I've never indicated any such thing. I hate his policies. I get angry at Bush for implementing those policies. This is legitimate. Anger is useful when it spurs us to useful action.
Got any useful actions yourself or do you prefer to instead spread untruths, build up strawmen and tell us what we think? Pardon me if I don't find that especially useful.
Jokingly claiming Bush owns or has read only 10 books is not particularly Christ-like. Don't let your disdain for Bush and his administration/policies cause you to stumble. If Bush is a genuine Christian that makes him your brother (assuming you are also a Christian). And voting him out of the Methodist Club won't make him any less a Christian in God's eyes, but will instead make everyone involved look childish, churlish, and any number of other ish's in God's eye.
Anything not of love is not of God. Please remember that.
Heronshields:"Jokingly claiming Bush owns or has read only 10 books is not particularly Christ-like"
Eh? That's exactly the kind of thing Christ did.
And they all with one consent began to make excuse. The first said unto him, I have bought a piece of ground, and I must needs go and see it: I pray thee have me excused.
And another said, I have bought five yoke of oxen, and I go to prove them: I pray thee have me excused.
Jesus was at a Pharisee's house and it was clear Jesus was talking about his hosts. The very idea of someone buying the very expensive investments of a parcel of ground or ten oxen but never having seen them is an insulting joke. And a pretty funny one at that.
What about the joke of the beam hanging out of someone's eye?
Yes, indeed, Jesus was quick with a sarcastic joke. Of course when one paints an icon of Jesus in their mind to where He looks as if he just swallowed a pint of pickle juice and has a corn cob up His backside, then I suppose one could miss the jokes.
Dan:"So, I'm laughing."
I'm afraid then, Dan, are laughing at the wrong thing. The story goes that a fellow met his friend in passing and said, "I was passing by your house last night and you really ought to close your window, I could hear you and your wife carrying on in the bedroom quite clearly!" To which the friend replies, "Ha! The joke's on you! I wasn't even at home last night!"
Like that.
ER,
The war would indeed be one of the most important Social Principles of the UMC that Bush has violated. But there are many more...environment, poverty, trade, basic freedoms and human rights.... The list can go on and on. One such is the death penalty:
"we oppose the death penalty (capital punishment) and urge its elimination from all criminal codes."
The Social Principles can be found here or by typing "United Methodist Church Social Principles" into your search engine.
Paragraph 164 of The Book of Discipline reads:
We deplore war and urge the peaceful settlement of all disputes among nations. From the beginning, the Christian conscience has struggled with the harsh realities of violence and war, for these evils clearly frustrate God's loving purposes for humankind. We yearn for the day when there will be no more war and people will live together in peace and justice. Some of us believe that war, and other acts of violence, are never acceptable to Christians. We also acknowledge that many Christiansw believe that, when peaceful alternatives have failed, and force of arms may regretfully be preferable to unchecked aggression, tyranny and genocide. We honor the witness of pacifists who will not allow us to become complacent about war and violence. We also respect those who support the use of force, but only in extreme situations and only when the need is clear and beyond reasonable doubt, and through appropriate international organizations. We urge the establishment of the rule of law in international affairs as a means of elimination of war, violence, and coercion in these affairs.
So that Bush has led a war is not sufficient grounds to charge him in a church court. The UMC supports Just War theory and pacifism as legitimate expressions of Christian ethics.
Also, the Social Principles do not constitute church law. I refer to the preface to the Social Principles on p.95 of the current Book of Discipline:
The Social Principles are a prayerful and thoughtful effort on the part of the General Conference to speak to the human issues in the contemporary world from a sound biblical and theological foundation as historically demonstrated in United Methodist traditions. They are a call to faithfulness and are intended to be instructive and persuasive in the best of the prophetic spirit; however, they are not church law.
So even if Bush is in violation of the Social Principles, he has not committed a chargeable offense.
This is true John.
It is encouraged that the Social Creed be recited regularly in worship services. It rarely is.
And one can argue whether the Iraq War falls under the "Just War Theory".
Or whether any modern war meets JWT criteria.
Iraq clearly violated JWT. But there is a large debate going on within UMC circles (well, not among laity, but among theologians and bishops) about whether JWT is compatible with certain documents of the discipline. See Stephen Long's _Living the Discipline_.
During the 1920s and '30s, the UMC was often listed by the government as a peace church.
But, for argument's sake, let's assume that JWT is compatible with UMC teaching and that a modern war could fit (because Dan's point is also strong given the sheer destructiveness of modern war:
The criteria for JWT are clear and Iraq doesn't measure up. The UMC bishops tried to meet with Bush before the invasion to discuss this and he wouldn't even see them. This was different from his Dad who, although he didn't listen, at least met with the Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church (Papa Bush is Episcopalian) when the latter came to warn against Gulf War I.
For an outline of the principles of JWT, see http://anabaptist418.blogspot.com/2006/08/basic-principles-of-just-war-tradition.html
During the 1920s and '30s, the UMC was often listed by the government as a peace church.
The UMC did not exist until 1968. In fact, the Methodist Church did not exist until 1939.
The criteria for JWT are clear and Iraq doesn't measure up. The UMC bishops tried to meet with Bush before the invasion to discuss this and he wouldn't even see them. This was different from his Dad who, although he didn't listen, at least met with the Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church (Papa Bush is Episcopalian) when the latter came to warn against Gulf War I.
That isn't so clear. But if any Methodists disagree, then by all means proceed with the complaint and trial guidelines of The Book of Discipline.
Next, try in a church court United Methodist layperson Hillary Clinton for her stance on abortion.
You're right. The Methodist Episcopal Church and MEC South were the component parts about which I spoke. Also, the United Brethren in Christ (a Wesleyan-influenced splinter from the Church of the Brethren), from which the UMC gets the "United" part of its name, was pacifist.
As far as I last checked, the UMC Book of Discipline only opposes abortion for flimsy reasons, but defends the option for rape, incest, or threat to the life and health of the mother. I think both Clinton and Sen. John Edwards (another Methodist presidential contender) would survive that standard as a test.
John I believe you are wrong about the Methodist Church. My Great-grandfather was a Methodist preacher (circuit rider) before he became a Baptist preacher in the early 1900s. He pastored a little Methodist Church in Rockwall Texas in 1896. His grandfather and his great-grandfather before him were Methodist preachers in Tennessee.
I did a little research. The first Methodist conference was presided over by Thomas Rankin at Philadelphia in 1773. It went through divisions, split over slavery, and was re-organized in 1939.
John I believe you are wrong about the Methodist Church. My Great-grandfather was a Methodist preacher (circuit rider) before he became a Baptist preacher in the early 1900s. He pastored a little Methodist Church in Rockwall Texas in 1896. His grandfather and his great-grandfather before him were Methodist preachers in Tennessee.
That would have been the "Methodist Church, South", which resulted from the Schism of 1844.
I did a little research. The first Methodist conference was presided over by Thomas Rankin at Philadelphia in 1773. It went through divisions, split over slavery, and was re-organized in 1939.
That would have been the Methodist Episcopal Church, which went through a number of splits, but never completely reunified (hence the ongoing presence of the Free Methodist Church and the Wesleyan Church). The body which formed in 1939 was known as "the Methodist Church" and was formed from the Methodist Episcopal Church (North), the Methodist Episcopal Church (South), and the Methodist Protestant Church.
My source is The Story of American Methodism by Frederick Norwood.
Michael wrote:
As far as I last checked, the UMC Book of Discipline only opposes abortion for flimsy reasons, but defends the option for rape, incest, or threat to the life and health of the mother. I think both Clinton and Sen. John Edwards (another Methodist presidential contender) would survive that standard as a test.
Whoops. I should have verified the Social Principles before making that assertion. Paragraph 161.J says, I would summarize, that abortion is very unfortunate, but should be a legal option for women whose lives would be badly impacted by caring for a child.
If Dan will forgive my breach of blogging etiquette with a self-referatory link, here is my write-upon the subject of trying Bush in a church court.
Written in love:
http://www.amazon.com/Why-Christian-Right-Wrong-Ministers/dp/0787984469/sr=1-1/qid=1169337554/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/102-0134349-4826531?ie=UTF8&s=books
Recorded in love:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gLhHzbnHAOM
Pastor of the church to which I adhere, BTW.
Thanks for that info John. I've only been a United Methodist for about 3 1/2 years. The Social Principles were instrumental in my decision to become a United Methodist. I was a Southern Baptist for over 50 years.
The Social Principles were instrumental in my decision to become a United Methodist.
I've heard United Methodists say this -- that the Social Principles were descriptive of the Church in action.
It just occured to me -- if Bush is in violation of Methodist standards by initiating the Iraq War, then so is Methodist Hillary Clinton, who also voted for that same war.
Investigate both of them!
Of course, someone might make the argument that the problem is that Bush misled the Congress into supporting his warring.
I've not had much to say about this because I'm not a Methodist. "Trials" are not part of my religious tradition and I don't think I feel comfortable with the way it sounds.
Loving confrontation of sinners IS part of my tradition, as is "shunning" - or removing fellowship from a sinner who has been confronted with his/her sin and who refuses to repent.
Investigate both of them!
Of course, someone might make the argument that the problem is that Bush misled the Congress into supporting his warring.
I've not had much to say about this because I'm not a Methodist. "Trials" are not part of my religious tradition and I don't think I feel comfortable with the way it sounds.
Loving confrontation of sinners IS part of my tradition, as is "shunning" - or removing fellowship from a sinner who has been confronted with his/her sin and who refuses to repent.
And John Edwards who is also UMC. However, unlike Hillary, Edwards has repented his 2002 vote for this war. He's spent a year calling it the biggest mistake of his political career and he's currently pushing hard to stop the escalation.
Dan, I think the kinds of processes that lead in Mennonite or Hutterite or even some Baptist circles to "bannings," or sometimes "shunnings," are not much different from trials, just less formal--and on a local, congregational level rather than denomination wide. All of these processes can degenerate into rigid legalism, but none MUST do so. Alas, in Baptist circles the reaction against rigid legalism in previous generations has led to a refusal to confront now--we have churches without church discipline. "All are welcome," and none are held accountable.
For instance, I opposed the impeachment of Bill Clinton because I didn't he was guilty of a "high crime or misdemeanor," in the Lewinsky matter. But I was extraordinarily disappointed that his church in Arkansas did nothing to discipline him--in fact, his pastor had watched Clinton have this womanizing pattern for years and had not confronted him. That's currently a huge problem with our congregations--across the theological spectrum.
When Bill Clinton was president I was Southern Baptist. I would not have approved a presidential library bearing his name at Baylor University.
Quite frankly, I don't think it appropriate for a presidential library to be located at any religious institution.
I don't see the point of presidential libraries. An archive of papers, sure. But a grand, marble-faced library is sheer narcissism.
Hey folks,
As I've argued before, no one could be put on trial for violating the Social Principles, but they could be put on trial for violating the Doctrinal Standards, which in Article 16 of the EUB confession of faith declare that "war amd bloodshed are contrary to the gospel and spirit of Christ." So please folks, for the sake of clarity, let's remember the distinction between the Social principles and the Doctrinal Standards. it would save a lot of confusion.
Thanks for the answer.
The discussion that followed is very enlightening. Makes the UMC sound a lot like Catholics, rules and more rules, Pharisees and Sadducees.
Jesus didn't really have many rules, in fact he boiled them all down to two; something to do with love or some such.
Bishops speak out against Bush Library, Think Tank at SMU and Vow to Push Forward
Post a Comment