Here is a quick polity lesson in the United Methodist Church. The UMC is ruled by the "Book of Discipline." The BOD outlines all decisions at every level of the UMC from a local church all the way to the national/international levels. The BOD is only altered every four years by a legislative body called the General Conference. The GC is made of both lay and clergy delegates from every Annual Conference. Methodists describe themselves as "connectional." Local churches connect with other local churches and form an Annual Conference. The Annual Conference then does work at a higher level than an individual local church can do. Nationally, Annual Conferences connect with other Annual Conferences and form General Boards. The General Boards only have authority to enact what the General Conference has said, and the GC only exists for 10 days every four years.
That said, the General Board of Church and Society is one such General Board that is represents the Annual Conferences, which represent the local churches. The GBCS has come out with a big endorsement of the new stimulus plan b/c they think the stimulus plan will help the poor.
Three questions:
1. Have they actually read the stimulus plan and then given enough time to debate the actual impact these policies will have on the poor? I can't imagine they have. The thing is something like 1100 pages long! No, instead the GBCS is more concerned with courting the new President.
2. Why are we hitching are cart to a governmental plan? Do we think that the transformation we seek in society is going to come from an federal economic plan? Really?
3. Why are they speaking w/o the authority of the General Conference? They are making statements that are simply not true for a great many United Methodists. This is not to say that I am opposed to the plan, but I am not going to attach the hope found in the Good News to a plan the federal government is proposing. I even voted for this President, and I can tell you that the GBCS is not speaking for me.
This issue of the GBCS hoping for systemic change through federal legislation is just a poorly conceived idea, but it is the backbone of this General Board. But why would Christians be looking for the government as a means for the spread of God's kingdom? The GBCS is essentially the same as the Christian Coalition at this point, just different ideologies. Why do these Christian groups place their hope in the government for systemic change? For instance, if we ban gay marriage are we really making more disciples of Jesus? If we endorse the stimulus plan are we really making more disciples of Jesus?
The only reason I can possibly fathom why these groups put their hope in government is that they don't trust that the Holy Spirit can actually transform people and bring about real change in society. The only evidence I see in history of real Christian transformation is when the church is not concerned chiefly with the state but is invested in people, especially the poor. Lets get rid of these Constantinian ideas and trust in the fact that Christ overcame death, he overcame Caesar (government) and he is the only way our world will be transformed.
5 comments:
Agreed. I have been weary of the "Christian Left" as of late. The critiques of the "Christian Right" as a political movement were valid. The problem is, those that were critical of the Religious Right have no adopted the same patterns and ideologies, just from the other side. Jim Wallis has become the leader of this group. I liked Jim's critiques (and he was often critquing me) four or five years ago, but now I equate his approach to that of Jerry Falwell. Neither is healthy. While I don't agree with everything he says (and I don't have to), I think Greg Boyd has some really good things to think about in his book The Myth Of a Christian Nation.
BTW-I don't think one congressman read the plan either.
T-Craig - agreed oon the Jim Wallis (and I'd lump Brian McLaren in there too.)
Spencer, I hope you don't mind me commenting here ocassionally. we've only met once.
To be direct:
Irony is the fact that this post follows the last post. I see no real distinction between my perception that underfunded church is really any different than the very thing you are weary of here.
some of the most vocally frustrated people I know who complain the loudest about Obama and socialism etc are the very people who also outsource much of their responsibilities in the local conservative church to the pastors and it's leadership.
Just an observation.
Mark, I see huge distinctions between the way God's people invest their money and those who are opposed to Obama's plan.
I think your observation is more in line simply with those who happen to be the vocal opponents of Obama. I voted Obama and I think that God's people waste their money on non-Kingdom issues.
Thanks Spencer, love the interaction. I'm not sure I'm being as clear as I'd like.
I agree with you. People waste their money on what I perceive to be non-kingdom issues.
Again, I didn't hear Tom's sermon, but if he's saying Asbury is underfunded, then from where I sit, I have to question how the church spends money. I'm not saying that they are wrong to do so, simply that it doesn't fit with how I understand the kingdom. Both are probably right, but I'm only gonna invest my life and finances in the the one I believe in.
Spencer, I disagree with your statement that GBCS has put its faith in government. Transforming the world happens on many levels - individually, in community and in government. I cannot say I've read the entire stimulus bill either but I do appreciate funding programs that help the poor and marginalized. Our churches should be doing this and the government. Also, I'd like to point out that GBCS did not put out a statement saying "the UMC supports the stimulus..." but that GBCS (the agency) did. I don't mind arguing the merits of the statement or stimulus bill but that point was misleading and inaccurate. Other program agencies do this as well on other issues and they make sure to point out that they are not speaking for the UMC but the agency.
Post a Comment