Liberal Methodist Elites Demean African Methodists

The United Methodist Church is one of those “mainstream Protestant” denominations that are controlled (in the U.S.) by liberal, fundamentally secular elites.

But Methodism has a long history of evangelism in Africa, and these U.S. elites have made the mistake of allowing African Methodists the right to participate in the affairs of the denomination on an equal basis. The result: there is a majority in decision-making bodies against the gay agenda.

That’s what happens when you give people from Africa equal treatment.

So what do the U.S. Methodist elites do? They demean Africans.

From Juicy Ecumenism:

Recently United Methodist Bishop Minerva Carcano of Phoenix chastised the just concluded governing General Conference of her church for failing to overturn United Methodism’s biblical teachings about marriage and sexual ethics.

“Our homophobia was blatant as we heard delegates compare homosexuality to bestiality, and voice other dehumanizing expressions against our LGBT brothers and sisters,” she complained in a column. She targeted the African delegates specifically.

“Delegates from Africa once again proclaimed that their anti-homosexual stand was what U.S. missionaries taught them. I sat there wondering when our African delegates will grow up. It has been 200 years since U.S. Methodist missionaries began their work of evangelization on the continent of Africa; long enough for African Methodists to do their own thinking about this concern and others. Our conservative U.S. United Methodists continue to depend on the conservative vote of African and Filipino delegates to maintain our exclusionary position on homosexuality, a position I believe would be changed for the inclusion of our LGBT sisters and brothers if a U.S. vote for a U.S. context were taken. The manner in which we deal with the concern of homosexuality affects all of ministry in the U.S., and we are the poorer for it. It is time for us to let go of our wrong position and be the church of Christ Jesus, a church that excludes no one.”

As to the “bestiality” allusion, Carcano was echoing the New York Times report on General Conference, which said:

Several Americans begged delegates to ‘hear the pain’ of gay church members. Moments later, a delegate from Africa said in Swahili that saying that a homosexual person was created by God was like saying “that God created me to live with animals.”

The New York Times then quoted a gay advocacy caucus spokesman:

The Rev. Troy Plummer, executive director of the Reconciling Ministries Network, which advocates full inclusion of gay people, said in an interview: ‘I’m tired of being compared to beasts in our church. Even if our world understandings differ, it’s just horrendous. That our perspectives differ is the truth, and we just voted 61 to 39 percent that we can’t tell that truth.’

The ostensible beastiality quote that Carcano and Plummer cited is based on a Congolese delegate who said:

“I rise to stand against this reasoning for the following reasons. First, the theme of our general conference is to make disciples for the transformation of the world. If we accept homosexuality, it means that the world transforms the church on homosexuality. You say a homosexual person is created by God the way he is or she is. I stand to say that that is not true. If we say that this is the way that God created them I refuse to accept that when they say ‘I am homosexual, I was created like this.’ Because God is a loving God, He cannot create a person with something that makes him or her suffer. If another person would come to the church and say, ‘God created me to live with animals,’ if we say ‘No’ it doesn’t mean we don’t love that person. I stand to say that the grace of God is for all people, but the grace of God does not allow us to sin. I ask to not accept this petition.”

The African delegate was not comparing homosexuality to beastiality, as Bishop Carcano claimed. Nor was he comparing homosexuals to “beasts,” as the caucus group spokesman claimed. Instead, the Congolese was saying the church’s mission is to “make disciples for the transformation of the world.” He noted that affirming homosexual behavior would be to allow the world to transform the church.

Allowing the world to transform the church has been the seeming mission for liberal bishops in America for many decades. The result is 3.5 million lost members in America. Carcano’s own Desert Southwest Conference is now down to under 39,000, having lost nearly 17 percent in the last 10 years alone. Meanwhile, there are over 2.2 million United Methodists under the 3 bishops in the Democratic Republic of the Congo.

The African churches are growing because they believe in transformation through the Gospel. Their success sadly earns them condemnation from some liberal, declining areas in the U.S. that are making their churches irrelevant by endlessly seeking accommodation with American secular culture.

One of the commenters on the Juicy Ecumenism website noted that the U.S. Methodist elites are engaged in “cultural colonialism.” That’s a good assessment.

But also note that these liberal elites always claim to be on the side of “people of color,” on the side of poor people and on the side of “oppressed” people of the Third World.

But what happens when those people get uppity, and fail to serve the agenda of their First World patrons? They get demeaned and derided.

Liberal Churchmen Support Racist Jeremiah Wright

From a Chicago Tribune column:

It has been about a month since Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr.’s rant against whites and America jarred our consciousness, but some people still can’t resist using it for their own purposes. We’ve heard just about enough from politicians, commentators and others of all sides who are trying to squeeze every opportunity for self-promotion from the controversy.

Even calls for calm and “sacred conversations” seem to add to racial animosities. The latest came in Wright’s own church, Trinity United Church of Christ on Chicago’s South Side.

There, leaders of the National Council of Churches gathered Thursday to “affirm this denomination and this congregation,” said Rev. Michael Kinnamon, the group’s general secretary.

In other words, affirm a racist pastor and a congregation that tolerated, and in many instances applauded, his hateful rhetoric.

In other words, they are acting like standard liberal clerics.

Further:

Rev. John H. Thomas, national president of the United Church of Christ, said of the sacred conversation about race that the group urged, “That does not mean that our language is always going to be gentle and quiet and graceful, because racism is not gentle and quiet and graceful.” Thomas apparently didn’t catch the irony that Wright’s rant was rough, loud and graceless and could be subject to charges of racism.

So if racism is “rough, loud and graceless” that justifies nasty racial animus, anti-Americanism and outrageous conspiracy theories about how black people have been oppressed.

What would Jesus do?

In the world of these liberal clerics, He would apparently try to mobilize hatred.

Sign Petition Supporting ROTC at Marquette

In the face of a planned demonstration by local leftists demanding a shut-down of ROTC at Marquette, Brian Collar of the GOP3.COM blog has set up an online petition supporting the officer training program.

The link to the petition is here.

Of course most conservatives will be happy to sign it, but we think a fair number of liberals will too.

Consider, for example, this comment by a liberal poster on the GOP3.COM blog.

ROTC won’t be shut down and everyone knows it. It gives too much to the school for being there and it’s far too helpful for students who need it.

It’s not the ROTC’s fault that the government is sending soldiers to fight an unjust war. I’m pretty sure it’s Congress’s fault for approving the insane “First Strike” law and not invoking their power to end the war, when ending the stinkin’ war was 99% of the reason anti-war Democrats were elected to congress last year.

That’s the right spirit. Feel free to disagree with the Iraq War if you want, but don’t try to stifle a program that has large benefits for both students and the university.

If you don’t want to serve in the military, by all means don’t join ROTC. But have a little respect for those who do.

Are Methodists Really This Far to the Left?

They, as we shall see, are not nearly so far to the left as the bureaucrats who run the congregation.

On the latter, from the Institute on Religion and Democracy:

The Spring directors meeting of the United Methodist Church’s General Board of Global Ministries (GBGM) authorized a flurry of left-wing political actions amidst reports of exciting international church partnerships and of GBGM’s continued financial decline.

The April gathering in Stamford, Connecticut was peppered with political themes. One speaker promoted U.S. participation in the controversial International Criminal Court. With no discussion, Directors endorsed the liberal Children’s Defense Fund lobbying for expanded welfare programs.

David Maldonado of United Methodism’s Perkins seminary defended illegal immigration. He said “the decision is not to be a criminal” but rather “to do what in your heart of hearts you know is the right thing.” Maldonado, who is also president of the denomination’s Hispanic caucus, MARCHA, compared immigration laws to segregation. And he was dismissive of worries about illegal immigration.

More moderate forces had a little success, however.

Evangelical directors successfully stopped a proposal to remove the United Methodist Church’s support for the International Day of Prayer for the Persecuted Church (IDOP). Liberal United Methodist officials have previously opposed IDOP on the grounds that it was supported by the “religious right.”

One has to suspect that, in a gethering like this, persecuted Christians are of far less concern than persecuted Muslims, persecuted homosexuals and persecuted women.

There was some review and discussion of a few new resolutions. But with no time for discussion in plenary session, the directors quickly approved dozens of older resolutions to, among other things:

• Oppose school vouchers
• “Deplore any ecclesiastical attempts in seminaries” to use the academic community for the promotion of any particular point of view” or “to require ecclesiastical loyalty oaths designed to protect cherished truth claims”
• Portray America as a land of “increasing oppression” with “police and the intelligence community’s harassment of minority leaders,” “rising militancy of rank-and-file police,” and “heavy punitive actions against dissidents.”
• Blame Puerto Rico’s economic problems on the U.S. federal government
• Promote “amnesty for the undocumented [i.e., illegal] immigrants living within the United States.”
• Assert that violating U.S. immigration law “is not a crime”
• Claim that “all people” are entitled “to have a full an abundant life”
• Urge massive debt cancellation for Third World nations
• Instruct the GBGM to work with leftist activist groups as the ACLU and the Center for Constitutional Rights
• Accuse the U.S.A. PATRIOT ACT of “particularly target[ing] … people of color”
• Instructs the denomination’s Washington lobby to “intensify its advocacy for the abolition of the death penalty throughout the world”
• “[U]nequivocally” opposes military intervention by any entity other than the U.N. against a sovereign nation
• Support “early cessation of U.S. arms sales in Taiwan”
• Instruct the GBGM “to continue discussions with” the pacifist Christian Peacemaker Teams and the International Solidarity Movement (ISM) “to explore the possibility of including United Methodists on the teams sent to areas of conflict.” The latter group is dedicated to interfering with Israeli anti-terror operations and claims that “the root cause of the conflict” in the region is solely Israel’s responsibility. Four years ago, one ISM leader was caught hiding a Palestinian terrorist in her office.
• Endorse U.N. Conventions regarding “The Rights of the Child” and “The Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women.” The former has been accused of promoting government intervention in parenting and the latter of promoting legalized abortion and prostitution.
• Call for legislation to outlaw anything that could be vaguely interpreted as “malicious and intimidating actions … related to” the victim’s “sexual orientation.”
• Criticize the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA)
• Urge “the U.S. government to end all military aid” to Israel
• Demand the end to sanctions against North Korea and Cuba.

One has to wonder: was there any left-wing cause that was overlooked?

When it came to handing out money, the same leftist agenda was seen.

At the end of the four-day meeting, directors were also rushed to quickly approve without discussion a 122-page “Mission Opportunities” book listing GBGM grants to outside groups. These grants included:

• $10,000 to the BADIL Resource Center for Palestinian Residency and Refugee Rights, which has demanded that other nations “impose a policy of complete and total isolation of Israel as an apartheid state” and refuses to acknowledge Israel’s right to remain a Jewish state. The GBGM’s own description of the grant notes that it will support “remembrances” of the “catastrophe” of Israel’s establishment in 1948.
• $5,000 to the Metro Alliance and Communities Organized for Public Services, two San Antonio affiliates of the Industrial Areas Foundation which describes its political perspective as “radical” and “progressive”
• $3,000 to the U.S. Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation, which has portrayed Israel as solely responsible for the region’s problems and includes members committed to Israel’s destruction.
• $3,000 to the Greensboro Justice Fund, which helps funds the Georgia chapter of the ACLU and a homosexual youth network. The GBGM description of this grant notes the recipient’s devotion to ending unspecified “homophobic discrimination” and “right wing attacks.”
• $5,000 to a “progressive” effort for “structural and systemic change in the criminal justice system.”
• $2,500 to the National Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty, which has promoted the cause of radical icon and convicted cop killer Mumia Abu-Jamal
• $2,500 to the Sentencing Project, which opposes mandatory minimum sentences and advocates, reduced penalties for crack-cocaine offences.
• $10,000 to the Gaza Community Mental Health Program, which “believe[s] the freedom of expression should in no way include hurting the feelings and believes [sic] of any ethnic or religious group.”
• Unusually and commendably, $5,000 to a United-Kingdom Christian group “to support its campaign to seek the abolition of anti-blasphemy law in Pakistan,” which is “used to persecute and imprison many religious minorities.”

Looking at this, one might get the idea that the Methodists are a left-wing denomination.

But suppose we look at the politics of rank-and-file Methodists, as reported in the General Social Survey of the University of Chicago.

• Methodists
  • Democrats -- 39.6%
  • Independents -- 14.7%
  • Republicans -- 45.7%
• All Others
  • Democrats -- 43.6%
  • Independents -- 15.4%
  • Republicans -- 41.1%

(To get these numbers, we pooled data from 1996-2004, and counted people who “leaned” toward a party as identifying with it.)

That’s right. Methodists are are bit more likely to be Republicans than the nation as a whole.

It’s all too typical in religious organizations that a cadre of clerics and bureaucrats run the organization. But the mystery is: why do rank and file Methodists put up with this sort of thing?

In large numbers, they don’t. The Methodist Church has been bleeding members for decades as people in the pews move to places that are apolitical, or conservative. The process is slow, however, as ties to other members and family traditions hold people in the denomination. But it moves on.

It’s not clear that the people running the denomination really care about this. Oh, they would like bigger budgets. But their loyalty is not to traditional Methodist doctrine, or even to biblical doctrine.

And, if they could meet and talk to John Wesley, they would probably consider him a religious fanatic.

Liberal Religious “Leaders” Mixing Religion and Politics

A large part of the rap against deceased Rev. Jerry Falwell was that he “mixed religion and politics.”

A huge sin, supposedly.

When it is done by conservatives.

But how will the Mainstream Media interpret this?

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Christian, Jewish and Muslim leaders are urging President George W. Bush and Congress to take action against global warming, declaring that the changing climate is a “moral and spiritual issue.”

In an open letter to be published on Tuesday, more than 20 religious groups urged U.S. leaders to limit greenhouse gas emissions and invest in renewable energy sources.

“Global warming is real, it is human-induced and we have the responsibility to act,” says the letter, which will run in Roll Call and the Politico, two Capitol Hill newspapers.

“We are mobilizing a religious force that will persuade our legislators to take immediate action to curb greenhouse gases,” it says.

The letter is signed by top officials of the National Council of Churches, the Islamic Society of North America and the political arm of the Reform branch of Judaism.

Top officials from several mainline Christian denominations, including the Episcopal Church, United Methodist Church, Presbyterian Church, African Methodist Episcopal Church and Alliance of Baptists also signed the letter, along with leaders of regional organizations and individual churches.

Rev. Joel Hunter, a board member of the National Association of Evangelicals, also signed the letter, though that group has not officially taken a stance on global warming due to opposition from some of its more conservative members.

This is a litmus test.

Are we going to hear any complaints from liberals and the Mainstream Media about these religious organizations jumping into the policy debate on global warming?

Of course, we know the answer to that.

But let’s talk about reality.

Religious organizations getting involved in politics is not a violation of the First Amendment. And it doesn’t threaten a nonexistent “wall of separation between Church and State.”

Indeed, religious people have exactly the same right to get involved in politics as every other American citizen.

But this applies not only to the liberal church bureaucrats who signed on to this statement, but to conservative Christians too.

“Mainstream” Clerical Types Blame U.S. For Iran

We’ve often blogged about the corruption of “Mainstream Protestantism” (which is no longer mainstream). While the folks in the pews are moderate, and often conservative, the clerical bureaucrats running the denominations are trendy leftists.

Thus we aren’t surprised by the following from the American Spectator.

An ecumenical delegation of church officials recently has returned from a warm meeting with the Iranian president in Tehran. Unfortunately for them, they got to Iran too late to join in the annually celebrated “Death to America” holiday. But they still, no doubt, got the flavor of Iranian antipathy towards the U.S. And they understand the reasons for the justifiably deep pain.

After all, the U.S. helped restore the Shah to power in a counter-coup in 1953. According to lore, Iranians have been reeling with anger ever sense.

The Religious Left, like the secular left, believes that indigenous cultures everywhere are sinless until corrupted by Western culture. Iran was yanked from the Garden of Eden when the CIA helped overthrow Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh.

Rev. Shanta Premawardhana, an official with the National Council of Churches, explained the mythology upon his return with the ecumenical delegation from the Islamic Republic:

“When Iranians think about the United States, the first images that come to their mind are from 1953, when the CIA collaborating with the British intelligence overthrew Iran’s first democratically elected government of Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh. His sin, nationalizing the oil industry! He argued that Iran should benefit from its oil industry rather than the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, which later became British Petroleum. In his stead, they placed the Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi. Iranians recall how this U.S. backed dictator oppressed them for 25 years, until in a popular rebellion inspired by a confluence of factors, including religious fervor, the people overthrew the Shah and instituted the world’s first Islamic Republic.”

So who can fault the Iranians for their rage?

Well . . . anybody who bothers with a little history.

Blaming America is reflexive for leftist church officials. But their Iranian mythology, like their other myths, is more ideological than historical.

Iranian Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh, after having forced the young Shah into exile, was himself dethroned in a counter coup covertly supported by the United States and Great Britain. No less than Winston Churchill and Dwight Eisenhower, the premier statesmen of their age, directly approved of the covert action. Churchill called Mossadegh an “an elderly lunatic bent on wrecking his country and handing it over to the Communists.”

Mossadegh had risen to power based on his uncompromising opposition to British influence in Iran. He urged Iran’s parliament to seize the British oil facilities in Iran, to which Britain responded by blockading Iran’s oil shipments. Iran’s parliament elected Mossadegh its prime minister, with the acquiescence of the young Shah. Initially, nationalists, Islamists and Iran’s communist Tudeh party all supported Mossadegh, based on their common opposition to the British. But the British embargo, Mossadegh’s refusal to compromise or accept foreign mediation, along with his socialist economic plans, all fueled an economic meltdown.

Mossadegh eventually dismissed parliament, called for a national referendum, and claimed election results of 99.9 percent for himself. He also had successfully seized the Shah’s constitutional authority over the armed forces. Mossadegh then ruled by emergency powers. The Shah attempted to dismiss him, but Mossadegh arrested the Shah’s messenger, prompting the Shah to escape into exile.

Thanks to the economic upheaval, once supportive nationalists, communists, clerics, and army officers peeled away from Mossadegh. The Shah, from his exile, once again dismissed Mossadegh from the premiership. Concurrently, the CIA and British organized demonstrators to agitate against Mossadegh, who surrendered after marchers and army tanks surrounded his house. He spent most of the next 15 years of his life under house arrest. The Shah returned in triumph and told the CIA officer in charge: “I owe my throne to God, my people, my army -- and to you!”

Skipping forward in history a bit:

In its first years of power, the Islamic Republic of Iran, under the Ayatollah Khomeini, would quickly murder many times the number of victims whom the Shah had tormented during his 25 years. The Ayatollah imposed a vicious Islamic theocracy that suppressed all political and religious opposition to his form of Shiite Islam. Iran also has funded and armed terrorist groups like Hezbollah that share its religious and political enthusiasms.

The countless crimes of the Islamic dictatorship in Iran did not interest the ecumenical church delegation that visited Iran last month. Instead, delegation member Jim Winkler has recalled that the Shah was “a dictatorial, murderous tyrant,” words that none of the delegation members have ever applied to the current Iranian theocrats. Winkler and others grudgingly acknowledge that Iran’s current regime is imperfect. But for that, isn’t America to blame?