Friday, November 19, 2010

The War On Poverty Has A New Enemy... The Poor

According to Wikipedia: "The War on Poverty is the name for legislation first introduced by United Sates President Lyndon B. Johnson during his State of the Union address on January 8, 1964. This legislation was proposed by Johnson in response to a national poverty rate of around nineteen percent (in 2009 it was 14.3% with another 4.6% at risk - US Census data). The speech led the US Congress to pass the Economic Opportunity Act, which established the Office of Economic Opportunity (OEO) to administer the local application of federal funds targeted against poverty." The idea was to provide community service, support and opportunity, so that poor people could climb out of poverty and discover one of the Four Freedoms along the way: "Freedom from Want (for you Franklin D. Roosevelt and Norman Rockwell fans). Unfortunately, Freedom from Want and Freedom from Fear have both seemed to have left the building, or at least the halls of good governance these days.

Case in point... Did anyone catch House Tea Party Caucus Leader: Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) on ABC's Good Morning America on November 16th. Please check it out: http://blogs.abcnews.com/george/2010/11/michele-bachmann-supports-tax-cut-compromise-but-not-if-tied-to-unemployment-benefits-.html. Not only were her facts incorrect and twisted to elicit fear, but she seemed to totally mis the point of George Stephanopoulos' question; "Why is it OK for the wealthiest Americans, earning over $250,000 a year to have their tax cuts extended... but for people who are out of a job, needing unemployment benefits, not to have their benefits extended?" For Rep. Bachmann extending unemployment benefits will increase our massive spending problem, but extending tax cuts will help everyone by creating jobs... anyone else confused by her logic and sense of service to her fellow citizens?

Maybe you need to read two other articles: 1) "More than 40 of the nation's millionaires have joined Patriotic Millionaires for Fiscal Strength to ask President Obama to discontinue the tax breaks established for them during the Bush administration" http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_theticket/20101119/ts_yblog_theticket/millionaires-to-obama-tax-us.
2) "Despite a stubbornly sour national economy congressional members' personal wealth collectively increased by more than 16 percent between 2008 and 2009, according to a new study by the Center for Responsive Politics of federal financial disclosures released earlier this year." http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/17/congress-richer-recession-millionaires_n_785222.html
Wow... that's right... Congress has done alright in the wealth department during these economic hard times and 40 of the wealthiest Americans don't want the tax cuts. I wonder how many Senators and Representatives are members of the Patriotic Millionaires for Fiscal Strength?

Somewhere along the line, and maybe it's the fear factor that seems to be pervading every aspect of our political, social and economic lives these days... you know, that has caused our generally kind, generous and compassionate culture to become so self-serving and protectionist... but somewhere somebody got it all wrong. Maybe it's people like Rep. Bachmann who make a congressional salary of $174,000; receives approximately $25,000 annually in farm subsidies for the family farm; who's husband, Marcus runs a Christian counseling service (Bachmann and Associates, Inc) that receives approximately $10,000 annually in state funds; and, we don't know what Marcus' annual salary is... maybe these are the wealthiest Americans who are so worried and confused. Confused, because they have somehow turned the War on Poverty into the War on the Poor; making them out to be shiftless, users that want nothing more than a handout from hard working Americans.

A wise friend, The Rev. Bill James, once said to a group of seminary students that I was a part of; "No one wants to be poor. Most of the time the poor lack the skills, support systems and opportunity to get out of the cycle of poverty." I wish we would focus on teaching job and money management skills; being part of a support system; and, work to ensure opportunities to work at a living wage... as much or more than we seem to focus on those who are abusing the system (on either end by fraud or corruption). If we did, we might actually be able to take on poverty, rather than further victimizing the poor.

Want to rethink fighting poverty? Check out some of the work www.MoveTheMountain.org is doing. Also, remember your faith more than your fear... "'When did we ever see you hungry and feed you, thirsty and give you a drink? And when did we ever see you sick or in prison and come to you?' Then God will say, 'I'm telling the solemn truth: Whenever you did one of these things to someone overlooked or ignored, that was me—you did it to me.'" (found within Matthew 25:31-46)

1032: Bad Decision Then, Worse Now!

On November 2nd the United Methodist News Service hit us with the discouraging news that the United Methodist Judicial Council ruled (during its Oct. 27-30, 2010 meeting) that “a United Methodist pastor has the right to determine local church membership, even if the decision is based on whether the potential member is gay or lesbian” and “Annual (regional) conferences cannot limit that right or ask the church’s top court to set policy (full story at: http://www.umc.org/site/apps/nlnet/content3.aspx?c=lwL4KnN1LtH&b=525969&ct=8854503 UMNews service By Linda Bloom).” This, of course, is all relating back to Judicial Council Decision No. 1032, from Oct. 29, 2005, related to the case of the Rev. Ed Johnson, who had been the senior pastor at South Hill (Va.) United Methodist Church until he was placed on an involuntary leave of absence by the Virginia Annual Conference. You can read all about the case and the actual decision and rationale at: http://archives.umc.org/interior_judicial.asp?mid=263&JDID=1098&JDMOD=VWD&SN=1001&EN=1032.

Here are the problems as I see them:

1) The Judicial Council tries to wash its hands of any responsibility by stating that they “do not set policy” when it comes to UMC law. That statement is misleading. Decision 1032 does in fact set policy. A) It set the policy that a pastor has the right to decline membership based on prejudicial beliefs that are already outlined in the Discipline as against UM Church beliefs. B) It set policy in that it denied the right of an Annual Conference the due process of holding an individual clergy member accountable for their behavior in terms of prejudicial actions regarding church membership. C) It set policy in determining that an individual pastor has more authority, when it comes to church membership, than the ecclesiastical body which they joined and agreed would have the job of overseeing their actions (the Clergy Session of their Annual Conference).

2) Decision 1032 moves us even further towards “creeping congregationalism” and undermines our “connectionalism.” By giving an individual pastor (the senior pastor –remember the initial complaint came from Rev. Johnson’s associate pastor) the right to act as gate-keeper in terms of membership; and holding that right above all others (ie. accountability to the Annual Conference and clergy colleagues); the UMC becomes that much less connectional and accountable to one another.

3) The 2008 General Conference amended Paragraph 225 of the Discipline, replacing the word “may” with “shall.” The revised sentence reads: “A member in good standing in any Christian denomination who has been baptized and who desires to unite with The United Methodist Church shall be received as either a baptized or professing member.” By not revisiting Decision 1032 or at least amending it, the Judicial Council is allowing a ruling to stand which the General conference has tried to correct. This sets both precedent and policy for future cases and is the main reason why I believe the Judicial Council has made a bad decision worse at this point.

4) Most important of all… the United Methodist church continues to try to live a façade of inclusiveness (Article 4 of our constitution) while embracing structural policies of discrimination and alienation. The real cost of Decision 1032 lies in the human cost – the grace-filled, loving Christian people who continue to walk away from the UMC because of our hypocrisy and un-Christ-like actions. Yes, others will walk away if we become truly inclusive, but I would rather live by a set of standards that reflect Jesus’ love and ministry, than by hurtful policies of exclusion that may make some who ae already in the pews feel more comfortable in their prejudice! May dad always use to tell me to “beware the comfortable pew.” Speaking of which, whenever I did something wrong and/or self-serving and would make excuses or talk about how I was going to change or improve; my father would simply look me in the eyes and say, “don’t tell, show me.” Well judicial Council & UMC – it is past time to walk the walk! To read more about our hypocritical approach to Human Sexuality as it relates to Homosexuality, read what we have online about “What is the denominations position on homosexuality? (http://archives.umc.org/interior.asp?ptid=1&mid=1324).”


I can’t understand why the Judicial Council won’t revisit such a destructive, un-Christian and non-United Methodist (or so we say in so many other ways) decision, like 1032. It leaves me wondering if motivations might lie in the run-up to General Conference 2012 and the re-election bids of several of the Judicial Council members. Maybe it’s true that we tend to mirror culture and society much more than we lead and shape it. What a shame and what a loss for our God – the one who calls us to live, love and serve as Jesus did!


Respectfully & Sadly Written by

Rev. Steve Clunn