[Peace-discuss] re: approaching local churches

[Morton K. Brussel]

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".

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.

The survey numbers fell during the following two years.

A poll last July by the Pew Forum showed 56 percent of white mainline  
Protestants and 54 percent o f white Catholics supported military  
involvement. Even among evangelicals, who helped Bush win re- 
election, support had fallen by 11 percentage points.

Richard Cizik, vice president of governmental affairs for the  
National Association of Evangelicals, which did not publicly endorse  
the war but has been a Bush backer, seemed surprised Friday when he  
was told 68 percent of evangelicals still thought invading Iraq was  
the right thing to do.

"It's probably attributable to general support of the president,"  
Cizik said.…

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0912-05.htm

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.

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

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.
>>
>> 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.
>
>> 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.
>
>> 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?
>
>> 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.

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.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/private/peace-discuss/attachments/20051107/79c46045/attachment-0001.html