Daily Campus

Bush Library controversy: Who's really "disconnected"?

Abstract:
A March 6 column ("The Bush presidency's disconnect with the UMC") by the Rev. Fred Kandeler targeted my organization, the Institute on Religion and Democracy (IRD). Ostensibly, IRD has attacked "the witness and integrity of UMC social justice teachings, initiatives and leaders" for 25 years....

Displaying 1 - 5 of 5

Ben

posted 3/21/07 @ 2:48 AM CST

If what you say is true (that 'mainline elites' are disconnected with the body of the UMC general membership) then I can understand the growing disdain for evangelical Christianity amongst many Americans.

While your politics and religion dominates the political and (to some degree) cultural order of the American landscape you surely must realize that many Methodist (such as myself) become disheartened by your political views of discrimination and anti-science.

You (and the many Southern Methodists like you) sir, are the reason I lost faith in the Methodist church. I question whether Jesus would truly approve of your political posturing (which is just as apparent as the other side with Rev. Kandeler). Don't create a neo-conservative Christian think tank - oppose a few genocides (which, if you study history, you will realize are not one sided and our country has some degree of responsibility in as well) and think you are doing the work of the lord. You are an elitist just like the liberal elites of the Methodist church - and you are all wrong. Your fellow congregation members may not see that, but I do.

Post a reply to this comment

Matt

posted 3/22/07 @ 11:25 AM CST

Ben, it's never a good idea to bring only a knife to a gun fight. If you don't think Jesus would approve of "political posturing" then it's not a far leap to think he wouldn't approve of the United Methodist Church as a whole. Or do you - as so many leftist Methodists have argued - think that Jesus truly does favor leftist thought over all others?

The UMC has increasingly morphed into a political attack dog and routinely focuses its ire for Republicans and conservatives. Those who have left the church are not fools - if they want to listen to political commentary on Sunday morning, they will stay at home and watch "Meet the Press."

When you make certain statements, you need to back them up. Against whom does the IRD discriminate? I would like to know. Also, what is your definition of a "neo-Conservative"? I would like to know and - if you can accurately define the term - I would like to know how it applies to the IRD.

Post a reply to this comment

Scott Rewak

posted 3/27/07 @ 2:11 AM CST

Originally posted by
Matt
Ben, it's never a good idea to bring only a knife to a gun fight. If you don't think Jesus would approve of "political posturing" then it's not a far leap to think he wouldn't approve of the United Methodist Church as a whole. Or do you - as so many leftist Methodists have argued - think that Jesus truly does favor leftist thought over all others?

The UMC has increasingly morphed into a political attack dog and routinely focuses its ire for Republicans and conservatives. Those who have left the church are not fools - if they want to listen to political commentary on Sunday morning, they will stay at home and watch "Meet the Press."

When you make certain statements, you need to back them up. Against whom does the IRD discriminate? I would like to know. Also, what is your definition of a "neo-Conservative"? I would like to know and - if you can accurately define the term - I would like to know how it applies to the IRD.

Allow me to answer for Ben. What "leftists" would argue is that Jesus cared for outcasts, turned the other cheek, and preferred peace over war. Is this "rightist" thought? You tell me.

You demand examples from Ben. Yet you give no examples of "republican hating leftist lobbying" by the UMC. What exactly is this effort you speak of? Fighting poverty? Yes, what a radical political ideology.

I will gladly give you the definition of neocon: firebrand wing of republican party, with members who fill many Administration positions, who advocate preemptive war, expanding America's empire, using religion as a manipulative tool, machiavellian political techniques, and equating all Isreali interests with American interests. If you care to dispute these traits, read works from Leo Strauss, Irving Kristol, Douglas Feith, Paul Wolfowitz, just to name a few. Or try looking up the Project for the New American Century, and its publication Rebuilding America's Defenses, and who the signatories of the document are.

I don't know enough about the IRD to comment on where it falls in neocon thought. But if the IRD is advising Mr. Bush on policy, and he is following that advice, it is no leap to speculate that they may share some ideas. But again, I don't know enough about the IRD.

What would Jesus bring to a gun fight? A knife? A gun? Another cheek?

Post a reply to this comment

Scott Rewak

posted 3/22/07 @ 4:01 PM CST

Mr. Tooley,

Thank you for writing. I have a few comments. First off, you did not address the disconnect that Rev. Kandeler pointed out between the Administration and the UMC. Regardless of any disconnect between UMC members and officials, the issue is the Administration and the church. If you do not believe there to be a disconnect, please illustrate. Second, if most members of the UMC are not political, as you state, what relevance is this alleged political disconnect between the officials and the members? Third, you mention the Jimmy Carter Center, but again, you don't address the connect or disconnect between the Center and the UMC. You simply equate the 2 situations as identical simply because of the difference in politics between Carter and Bush. But the issue is connection with the UMC principles, which again, is not addressed. If you believe Bush's policies to be in conjection with the principles of social justice that Rev. Kandeler mentioned, please give examples. Fourth, the membership size of the UMC is not relevant to this discussion. This is a Methodist institution, not an Evangelical one, regardless of which gets more of a crowd nationally in this country. Fifth, you mention the lobbying efforts of the mainline churches, and the "liberal" causes they lobby for. What are these liberal causes, and what exactly makes them liberal? And why is that disconnected from the UMC? Is fighting poverty a "liberal" cause? Does that create a "disconnect" with more conservative members? Are they for poverty?

Thank you

Post a reply to this comment

Jonathan Jeffrey

posted 8/08/07 @ 12:20 AM CST

Originally posted by
Scott Rewak
Mr. Tooley,

Thank you for writing. I have a few comments. First off, you did not address the disconnect that Rev. Kandeler pointed out between the Administration and the UMC. Regardless of any disconnect between UMC members and officials, the issue is the Administration and the church. If you do not believe there to be a disconnect, please illustrate. Second, if most members of the UMC are not political, as you state, what relevance is this alleged political disconnect between the officials and the members? Third, you mention the Jimmy Carter Center, but again, you don't address the connect or disconnect between the Center and the UMC. You simply equate the 2 situations as identical simply because of the difference in politics between Carter and Bush. But the issue is connection with the UMC principles, which again, is not addressed. If you believe Bush's policies to be in conjection with the principles of social justice that Rev. Kandeler mentioned, please give examples. Fourth, the membership size of the UMC is not relevant to this discussion. This is a Methodist institution, not an Evangelical one, regardless of which gets more of a crowd nationally in this country. Fifth, you mention the lobbying efforts of the mainline churches, and the "liberal" causes they lobby for. What are these liberal causes, and what exactly makes them liberal? And why is that disconnected from the UMC? Is fighting poverty a "liberal" cause? Does that create a "disconnect" with more conservative members? Are they for poverty?

Thank you

Mr Rewak, It has been far to long of a time since we have talked. As for the Polictical debate you are having above, I have no comment. But as for the fact I havent heard or since you n about 9 years, I will comment on that. It has been to long brotha and I think you need to write me back. strongapostolic@yahoo.com, maybe we can catch up of the last couple of years of our life.

Yours Truly Number one Track star,

Jonathan Jeffrey

Post a reply to this comment

Displaying 1 - 5 of 5

Post Your Comment