[Peace-discuss] re: approaching local churches

[Phil Stinard]

Hi Mort,

>From: "Morton K. Brussel" <brussel4 at insightbb.com>
>To: "Phil Stinard" <pstinard at hotmail.com>
>CC: peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
>Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] re:  approaching local churches
>Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2005 12:55:57 -0600
>
>Phil,
>
>I guess it would be useful if we could poll the churches in C-U to  find 
>out in how many sermons, if any, there has been a discussion of  the 
>morality of present American foreign policy/actions . My  admittedly 
>anecdotal information is that too few have done so. That  is why I noted 
>the silence of too many churches . "Too many" is my  opinion and 
>evaluation; yours is evidently different. Others, even  church members, 
>agree with my impression. Moreover, as is confirmed  by polls among 
>evangelical fundamentalist churches, those who support  the war Iron Iraq 
>are predominant. By now, of course, most Americans  think the war to have 
>been a "mistake".

I think that it's important to gauge the opinions of local churches (leaders 
and members), especially the ones you plan to specifically focus on.  By the 
way, I wasn't disagreeing with the statement that two many churches are 
silent.  I just wanted more specific numbers.

>September 12, 2005 by the San Bernardino County Sun (California)
>
>…Two months after Bush declared major combat in Iraq completed in May  
>2003, most Christians thought the United States had acted prudently,  
>according to a poll by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life.
>
>Those agreeing with the military effort were 68 percent of white  mainline 
>Protestants, 74 percent of white Catholics and 79 percent of  white 
>evangelicals. Mainline denominations are those that originated  in Europe 
>and include Lutherans, Episcopalians and Methodists.

It would be instructive to poll a control group of atheists.  Again, since 
you're working with local churches, it would be nice to have local data, but 
I realize that might be a tall order.

[other national polling data deleted]

>We are motivated by recognition of these facts and the urgency of  getting 
>the United States to drastically alter its policies.
>
>It is of course true that many of the organized mainline churches  have 
>spoken out against the war [The World Council of Churches,  National 
>Council of Churches, United Methodist, Episcopal, Pope John  Paul II, 
>etc.], but I don't know how that has been translated into  Sunday sermons 
>to their congregations.

A lot of sermons deal with issues of personal salvation and overcoming 
personal difficulties in life, not national or global issues.  That is the 
nature of churches--they deal with the nature of the relationship between 
man and God.  I don't think that you can label a church as pro-war just 
because they don't have sermons that speak against it.  If you would like 
the sermons to be more tailored to issues of peace and justice, you will 
need to dialogue with the pastor who writes the sermons.

>Knowing you to be an anti-war person, I must say that I've been  surprised 
>by the vehemence of your criticism of our projected actions  to help end 
>this loathesome war. Perhaps you should attend one of our  working group 
>meetings on this topic. I understand that you think we  should approach the 
>leaders of the churches first before acting. That  is a tactical question 
>which we are thinking about.

Mort, you should know that my objections are not to actions to end the war.  
The war is clearly criminal and immoral.  My objections are specific to 
targeting religious institutions.  It can be done, but it needs to be done 
cautiously, perhaps BECAUSE religion is such an important issue in many 
people's lives.  I've been bogged down with many other things lately and 
haven't had time or energy to attend AWARE meetings.  I'm keeping an eye on 
things through the Peace-Discuss list, but I'd be willing tomake an effort 
to attend the main AWARE meetings where this is discussed.  Randall invited 
me to the last one, but I got his invitation too late.

>Mort
>
>Now, to your specific remarks:
>
>On Nov 6, 2005, at 8:59 PM, Phil Stinard wrote:
>
>>Mort,
>>
>>I'm puzzled by your comments.  For me, the bottom line is that  until you 
>>approach and talk to ministers and members of the  churches you plan to 
>>target and find out what their views are, you  have absolutely nothing to 
>>go on regarding the views held by said  individual churches, and any 
>>protest of perceived views will NOT be  well-received or constructive in 
>>the least.  I'll make additional  comments in-line below:
>
>We hope to approach the members of the congregation rather than "the  
>individual churches", although I would agree that it would be useful  to 
>talk to the church leaders as well about these issues.

It would be nice for the church leaders to know what you're doing and why, 
so you can be more effective and not turn the congregation against you.

>>>Some thoughts: Our initiative to be an anti-war, anti-torture, anti-
>>>justice presence outside churches comes from our recognition of the
>>>self imposed silence of too many churches in ignoring these foremost
>>>moral issues of the day.
>>
>>"Too many churches"?  Can you be more specific and give a  percentage of 
>>churches that ingnore the foremost moral issues of  the day, or is this 
>>just a vague impression?
>
>I've addressed this already, above.
>>
>>>All the more so since we understand the
>>>importance of religion in this nation and the influence of its
>>>churches.
>>
>>What is your understanding of the importance of religion in this  nation 
>>and the influence of its churches?
>
>Do you require a treatise? It has been well documented that the  degree of 
>religiosity in the United States is far higher than in any  other western 
>developed country. It is natural to infer from this  that folks consider 
>religion very important here. As to the influence  of the churches as such, 
>that is less sure. Certainly, the general  population does not always 
>follow the precepts of the church leaders  (Catholics divorce and practice 
>birth control, etc.). But I don't  think folks attend church purely for 
>social reasons; they expect to  find enlightenment there, and guidance too.

I don't want a treatise.  I just wanted to know your general view.  You gave 
an answer that I can agree with.

>>>To bring up issues like anti-religious activism and anti-
>>>abortion activism is gratuitous to say the least.   Our efforts are
>>>not against religion or churches per se. We seek simply to dialog and
>>>inform members of the religious community about these critical
>>>politico-moral issues.
>>
>>Well, I've seen plenty of examples of anti-religious activism and  
>>pro-abortion activism by the progressive community, but if you say  that 
>>this will not be a part of any AWARE church actions, I will  take your 
>>word on it.
>
>Good.
>
>>
>>>My inclination is that if the leaders of the churches approach us, we
>>>should gladly respond. However, if such leaders are antagonistic
>>>about discussing these issues, we should not refrain from approaching
>>>their membership in whatever peaceful way we can. This will no doubt
>>>arouse antagonism by those who support our government's policies or
>>>think it unseemly to bring forward such controversy. So be it.
>>
>>"Arouse antagonism by those who support our government's  policies"?  Now 
>>who is being gratuitious, Mort?  And you expect the  leaders of the 
>>churches to approach you first in order to head off  "approaching their 
>>membership" in a peaceful way?  Dialogue needs  to take place before any 
>>such actions could possibly be condoned.
>>
>You seem to feel that it outrageous (can't be "condoned") that we  
>distribute information on the sidewalks in front of a church. I  don't. 
>Also, I don't understand the gratuitousness of my statement;  is it just 
>that it's obvious? You seem to feel that we are attacking  the churches in 
>doing so. We are not attacking the institutions as  such, we may be 
>attacking the silence of those individual churches,  or worse than the 
>silence, their implicit or explicit approval of the  war.

My point is that I think that you might raise antagonism even among people 
who support AWARE's views.  Look at what Reverend Smith said.  It could very 
well be taken as an attack on the church, but you might want to get the 
opinion of other church leaders and members on that.  I'm not saying that 
it's wrong to criticize church leaders and/or members that say that the war 
in Iraq is moral and desirable.  I am saying to proceed with extreme caution 
and exhaust possibilities at dialogue first.  Dialogue is always more effect 
than confrontation provided both sides are willing to sit down and listen to 
each other.


>>>And what does "self -righteous" imply in this context?
>>
>>Self-righteous in this context means that you assume that you have  a 
>>moral orientation superior to that the average person attending  the 
>>church in question.
>
>Yes, we wish to explain what we think is the immorality of the war.  That 
>does imply that we are inherently superior, but it may imply  that we are 
>more sensitive and informed. Most folks with strong  opinions think their 
>opinions are superior  to others'. Else, why  would they hold them?

You might be "morally superior" on the issue of war, but not on other issues 
that the church deals with.  Be very very careful to make it clear that you 
are speaking against the war, and not attacking the church in general.

>>>Our working group has not yet determined exactly how we shall  proceed.
>>
>>Yes, but I've read suggestions, and the Methodist minister  certainly 
>>developed some impressions from the limited dialogue that  he had with 
>>AWARE.
>
>I'm unaware of the dialogue he had with AWARE. I must say however,  that 
>his statement is, over all, a welcome one. But I disagree with  his 
>statement:
>
>"In my opinion, passing an "official resolution" is actually an  abdication 
>of the real power that congregations."
>
>Recent statements by many main line churches would also strongly  disagree.

I could go into the theological implications, but I'm not going to preach to 
you or get into a religious argument, so let me just say that I agree with 
the Reverend on this.

--Phil

>Mort
>
>
>
>
>>>
>>>Appended below are a few responses relative to those of Reverend
>>>Smith, below.
>>>
>>>
>>>On Nov 6, 2005, at 1:20 PM, Phil Stinard wrote:
>>>
>>> > Reverend Smith raised some important issues in his comments to
>>> > AWARE.  I agree that it would appear foolhardy and self-righteous
>>> > for AWARE to picket/leaflet a church unless an attempt at dialogue
>>> > has been made.  The repercussions of such an act would be to
>>> > marginalize AWARE and make it appear like a group of lazy, anti-
>>> > religious activists, and as a person of faith, that would sadden
>>> > me.  There is a huge difference between leafleting in a public
>>> > space in downtain Champaign and leafleting churchgoers.  Please
>>> > approach the churches first, as Reverend Smith suggests, discuss
>>> > the issues, and even ask permission to leaflet the churchgoers.
>>> > And if you do leaflet, make sure that the focus is on being anti-
>>> > war.  That is, I think, the common issue for all AWARE members.  If
>>> > other issues are brought in, such as abortion, you might see me
>>> > picketing on the other side.
>>> >
>>> > --Phil
>>> >
>>> > -------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> >
>>> > [Peace-discuss] approaching local churches
>>> > Karen Medina kmedina at uiuc.edu
>>> > Thu Nov 3 21:21:51 CST 2005
>>> >
>>> > Dear AWARE members,
>>> >
>>> > A few weeks ago we discussed the idea of approaching the
>>> > local churches and asking that they speak out against the
>>> > occupation of Iraq and for peace, especially during the
>>> > holiday season when people of several faiths are reminded to
>>> > seek out peace on earth. We set up a working group that is
>>> > considering creating a presence outside several local
>>> > churches.
>>> >
>>> > Below is what I think will be a typical response from a
>>> > church will be. These comments come from a local minister. He
>>> > has brought up some good questions, and I offered to share
>>> > them with you:
>>> >
>>> > "we are the typical thicket of opinions one finds in
>>> > mainstream congregations.  The congregation has NOT taken a
>>> > formal stance on this issue.
>>>
>>>If some in a congregation condone murder, is that a reason why the
>>>leadership (or the pastor) should avoid this issue?
>>>Of course there are problems of keeping a congregation united, but
>>>where then do questions of morality enter?
>>
>>The reverend SAID that he opposes the war in Iraq.  I'm sure that  his 
>>position is well known to his congregation.  However, he does  not command 
>>an army of clones.  Nor does AWARE, I might add.
>>
>>> > "The implication of picketing and protesting is that one
>>> > party, holding administrative power, has refused to
>>> > participate in earnest and open minded dialogue with people
>>> > who are powerless.
>>>
>>>???.
>>
>>Mort, this is an allegory.  The idea is that picketing is a resort  to be 
>>used after earnest attempts at dialogue have failed.  It  makes sense to 
>>me.
>>
>>> > Picketing and protesting then become a
>>> > part of a strategy to change power dynamics.
>>>
>>>We do not consider ourselves as pickets, and we protest only the
>>>silence of the church on what are supreme moral issues.
>>
>>(1) If you are not pickets, then what are you?  You say you're  
>>protesting, after all.
>>
>>(2) The silence of which church?  They're not all the same.  Some  are 
>>vocal against the war as official church policy.  Others  encourage their 
>>individual members to make their own decisions of  conscience.  I would 
>>wager that the vast majority of members of  your typical church are 
>>against war, against torture, and pro- justice.  Seriously, what do you 
>>want them to do?  And, who are you  to tell the churches what they should 
>>be telling to their members  or should be adopting as official policy?  
>>You are REALLY,  SERIOUSLY speaking past each other.  You're not on the 
>>same  wavelength at all.  That's why I think that you should go in and  
>>talk to the minister, lay leaders, whoever, BEFORE making the  assumption 
>>that the church you are targeting is morally depraved.
>>
>>> > Ethically
>>> > speaking, they should occur AFTER attempts have first been
>>> > made to hold conversation.
>>>
>>>
>>>Where is the ethical aspect? Perhaps courtesy could be claimed.
>>>Inaction/silence by the churches already is a statement.
>>
>>The ethical aspect is in using other forms of protest only after  dialogue 
>>has been exhausted.  It might not be part of your ethical  system, so you 
>>can call it courtesy if you want.
>>
>>Inaction/silence by the churches AS PERCEIVED BY YOU might be a  statement 
>>to you, but you should talk to church leaders and members  to find out 
>>their story.
>>
>>> > Some protests are in the spirit of
>>> > Martin Luther King Jr.'s principles he outlined in "Letter
>>> > from the Birmingham Jail." Other protests are a parody of his
>>> > principles.  Any protest that short circuits a genuine
>>> > attempt at initial conversation is questionable in my mind,
>>> > even an indication of laziness on the part of the protesters.
>>> >
>>> > "If protesters from AWARE appear in front of [a given] Church,
>>> > at this point, it will be interpreted by me as an act of
>>> > self-righteousness.
>>>
>>>Are not people who firmly believe in the tenets of a religion already
>>>self-righteous?
>>
>>No, some of them are truly righteous :-).  You're not speaking  their 
>>language, Mort.  That's why dialogue is important first.  You  could have 
>>such a greater impact with the churches if you worked  and dialogued with 
>>them rather than confronting them.
>>
>>The reverend made a clear reference to Martin Luther King's  principles.  
>>That could be a good starting point.
>>
>>>Perhaps this has a particular religious connotation which bypasses my
>>>understanding.
>>
>>:-)
>>
>>> > "Up until now, no one from AWARE has approached [a given]
>>> > Church and engaged its leaders in genuine dialogue.  We have
>>> > received generic mailings and notices from AWARE, but that is
>>> > hardly relational or trust building.  Mass mailings do not
>>> > constitute the building up of relational foundations that
>>> > eventuate in genuine change of people's hearts and political
>>> > involvement.  I have yet to see anyone from AWARE approach the
>>> > people of [a given church] with political savvy or genuine
>>> > interest in personally inviting folks into collaboration on
>>> > this issue.
>>> >
>>> > "I also think that AWARE should reconsider what kind of power
>>> > resides in congregations.  In other words, what kind of power
>>> > do congregations really have to affect the course of political
>>> > events.  In my opinion, passing an "official resolution" is
>>> > actually an abdication of the real power that congregations
>>> > possess.  I would welcome the chance to meet with you over a
>>> > cup of coffee and explore this issue further.
>>>
>>>Churches usually claim to focus on personal and public morality.
>>>Also, they often instruct on basic moral principles. If their
>>>congregations are affected by what is discussed in their environs,
>>>then that can affect society as a whole, and obviously constitutes
>>>power. Does this need to be pointed out?
>>
>>The reverend is saying that just passing a resolution is a sterile  act of 
>>little consequence.  The real power is in the actions of  individuals and 
>>groups.  But to get people to respond, you have to  work with them, not 
>>antagonize them.  The reverend said, "I have  yet to see anyone from AWARE 
>>approach the people of [a given  church] with political savvy or genuine 
>>interest in personally  inviting folks into collaboration on this issue."  
>>How do you  respond to that, Mort?  If you haven't even tried to dialogue 
>>with  them, how do you respect them to respond to picketing (or whatever  
>>you want to call it) or a blanket condemnation?
>>
>>> > "Having said all of the above, please know that these comments
>>> > come from someone on your side. I too abhor the war in Iraq.
>>> > It is offense and embarrassment to wise and peaceful people
>>> > around the world.
>>> >
>>> > "And churches have been sinfully slow in engaging the massive
>>> > ungodliness of this war.  We have indeed been attending to
>>> > internal institutional issues rather prophetic callings,
>>> > compartmentalizing political life from spiritual life, and
>>> > underestimating the power of God to effect international
>>> > issues as much as private and personal problems.
>>> >
>>> > "And because I am in full support of your passion for peace, I
>>> > hope the first PERSONAL encounter people of [a given] Church
>>> > have with AWARE will be one of mutuality and respect.  I hope
>>> > you will take the time to find out what the people of [a given
>>> > church] are already doing in the realm of peacemaking,
>>>
>>>Peacemaking is not enough; justice has enter the mix.
>>
>>He's on your side on the Iraq war, and apologizes that the church  has 
>>been neglecting international issues.  Of course, that's not  enough for 
>>you, but clearly he is willing to enter into dialogue,  perhaps even to 
>>talk about specific actions, and your response is...?
>>
>>> > how the
>>> > people of [unnamed] Church understand their own power (and
>>> > that AWARE would be respectful of that self-understanding),
>>> > and how the people of [a given church] are wrestling through
>>> > their own ethical principles about a war that is being fought
>>> > in the context of larger and more complex international
>>> > issues.
>>>
>>>We're talking about wanton killing, destruction, and repression,
>>>based on deceit; We wish to cut through the propaganda and
>>>ratiocination which tries to veil the brutality of these facts.
>>
>>Well-spoken, Mort.  Now talk amongst yourselves.
>>
>>> > I hope the people of [a given church] will first
>>> > experience the people of AWARE as people of faith, passion,
>>> > goodwill, determination, spirituality, strength, and humility.
>>>
>>>Amen!
>>>
>>> > - from Rev. Michael Smith of Grace United Methodist Church on
>>> > Philo Rd.
>