IRD and the ‘Methodist GAP’

Can the United Methodist Church (UMC) ever be the force for Jesus Christ that it once was? The very question implies that things were better in the past, at least in the United States. So things were better, at least from an evangelical perspective.

There has been a significant decline in Methodism over the past 125 years. Even then the church has been faithful and strong in many places, in some conferences, and in many local churches. In more recent times, however, following the Methodist-United Brethren merger and the subsequent restructuring in the 1968–72 period, Methodism has been experiencing a serious implosion. There has been a loss of nearly 5 million members over a 50-year period, and diminished effectiveness in mission and ministry. The reasons for this are many. This article offers an example of at least one reason: The Methodist GAP as illustrated by the story of the founding of the Institute of Religion and Democracy (IRD).

The March 23 issue of The Christian Century carries an article by Jeannine M. Pitas entitled “The Prophetic Church in Ortega’s Nicaragua.” The article traces the tragic downfall of Nicaragua under Daniel Ortega and the socialist Sandinistas government from the 1980s until the present day. Nicaragua now suffers under a brutal dictatorship characterized by the breakdown of institutions, concentration of wealth in the hands of a few, and loss of individual freedoms. Perhaps more alarming is the severe persecution of Christians, especially the Catholic Church, with churches being shut down and priests arrested and killed.

It wasn’t meant to be that way. A little over 40 years ago, Daniel Ortega and his calls for justice and equity were the darlings of socialist ideologies everywhere, including much of the leadership of United Methodism. Before Ortega, Nicaragua had suffered under a right-wing Somoza dictatorship. Ortega and the Sandinistas came to power with promises of land reform, literacy campaigns, vaccination campaigns aimed at eradicating diseases, and efforts to improve sanitation. Mainline churches, enthralled with liberation theology and revolutions everywhere, were supportive.

I recall church discussions in the 1970s about liberation movements, the appropriateness of armed warfare to overthrow unjust governments, and oppressive governments in places like Rhodesia, South Africa, Venezuela and Nicaragua. With this was the intrigue in socialism. I remember asking one of our seminary professors one day about where, if the United States was such an oppressive capitalist nation, did she see an example of hope for a new world order. She replied, “Cuba.”

One person not enthralled with socialist governments was David Jessup, a Methodist layman from Virginia, who one day read some material his daughter brought home from Sunday school appealing for money for wheat shipments to Vietnam and lauding the Patriotic Front in Zimbabwe. Jessup was employed by the AFL-CIO. His job was to identify for the unions radical groups that would undermine the cause of labor and democratic values. He was troubled by what he read and did some investigating on his own. He visited the United Methodist Building in Washington and made trips to New York to gather information. The UM agencies he visited were tight-lipped and resistant to give out information, but Jessup persisted and then wrote a report about extremist groups supported by UM apportionment money. But what to do with the report? He approached a number of persons who were either not interested or thought it too controversial for their involvement.

Finally, someone referred Jessup to Don and Virginia Shell, who were newly assigned to coordinate political strategy for Good News for the 1980 General Conference. It was too late to introduce appropriate petitions but perhaps the report could be circulated at the conference. Because of the heavy work loads delegates were facing it can be fairly concluded that few delegates read the report before or during the conference.

The uproar came after General Conference when Newscope, the newsletter published by United Methodist Communications (UMCom), noted the report and its contents and then printed some responses from church leaders. The responses supported the involvements of the agencies followed by expressions of alarm over Jessup’s report, making mention of a right-wing conspiracy, and a “McCarthyite witch hunt.” The Newscope article was followed on Oct. 17, 1980, with a more lengthy major white paper by UMCom mailed to all clergy and others in the UM Connection. Entitled “Dealing Responsibly with Controversy,” the paper again referred to right-wing groups of the past and spoke of “persons who cling to an understanding of history and the role of our nation that seems to be fading.”

This was not Methodism’s finest hour. Jessup was a Democrat and worked on Jimmy Carter’s election campaign. He had been active in the Peace Corp in Peru, in the civil rights and farm worker movements in California, and was interested in becoming involved in church-related projects such as refugee assistance. Despite his liberal social connections he was much aware of threats to liberty from the left and became concerned when he learned about UM agency support for Ayatollah Khomeini, the Cuba Resource Center, the Nicaraguan Literacy Program, the North American Congress on Latin America with their monthly newsletter devoted to Che Guevarra, and other grants and statements. His information about the groups he mentioned had come not from any right-wing political groups but from the State Department of a Democratic Administration. One of his comments was that if a Democratic-led State Department and the AFL-CIO could support democratic values why could not the United Methodist Church?

By this time, more people become involved in the conversation. In April of 1981, several persons from Good News as well as other well-known national figures including Carl F.H. Henry, Richard Neuhaus, and Roman Catholics Michael Novak and George Weigel, came together and formed the Institute on Religion and Democracy (IRD). The Sarah Scaife Foundation and the Smith Richardson Foundation gave initial grants. The founding document, entitled “Christianity and Democracy” was written by Neuhaus (who later founded First Things journal). National media began to take note. Major stories were written by the Washington Post and the New York Times. In December 1982, Reader’s Digest carried an article, “Do You Know Where Your Church Offerings Go?” On January 23, 1983, the CBS program 60 Minutes aired the segment, “the Gospel According to Whom?” In the March 28, 1983, issue of Time, the controversy was highlighted in an article, “Warring Over Where Donations Go.”

At this point the general church might have entered into serious discussion around the appropriateness of what some of its agencies were about. That did not happen.

As local churches began to react to the news the general agencies became more and more strident in defense of their positions and involvements. In the Spring of 1983, the General Board of Church and Society (GBCS) conducted a secret investigation, seeking to ascertain whether there were Jessup and IRD connections with political right-wing groups. It was “secret” because it was conducted by staff persons without the approval or even knowledge of the board itself.

The Board of Global Ministries (GBGM) was in discussion with leadership of AFL-CIO over what the board felt was the inappropriateness of an employee of AFL-CIO being critical of the churches. There was a strong suggestion that Jessup be fired. AFL-CIO responded: I have in my possession the copy of a letter from Lane Kirkland, head of AFL-CIO to Peggy Billings of GBGM, supporting Jessup. Finally, the United Methodist Reporter, the highest-circulated Protestant newspaper in the nation, known not only for its fairness but for its willingness to investigate big issues and expose the foibles of both liberals and conservatives, did its own investigation, not just of UM agencies but of the National Council of Churches, concluding that there was serious bias toward liberal causes.

Evangelicals in the church were well aware of this bias. It had been noted by many that fewer UM missionaries were being commissioned, especially to overseas assignments. Overseas full-time  missionaries appointed by the mission agencies of the church had declined from something like 1,500 missionaries at one time to under 400 missionaries (the Southern Baptists in the meantime claimed 5,000 missionaries). Bishop Ole Borgen from Norway summarized the situation well in a speech given at the Good News Convocation in Anderson, IN, in the summer of 1983. Speaking of Methodism he said:  

We have almost imperceptibly moved to a position which, drawn to its uttermost consequence, will end up in a socially defined humanism where faith concepts are used, but where man himself is the acting and redeeming agent.

There is much more to this story and the establishment of IRD as a faithful and responsible balancing voice not only within United Methodism but within mainline denominations, but this short historical sketch should, we hope, make a point about we have referred to as “THE GAP,” the wide gulf between the understandings of common ordinary Methodists, particularly lay people, and the understandings of the church bureaucrats. A church that speaks so much about inclusivity has shown itself, in matters relating to doctrine and ideology, as not inclusive at all, at least in reference to a more traditional understanding of the church’s doctrine and mission.

While studies indicate that United Methodist membership is basically conservative and evangelical, the episcopal leadership, the seminary leadership and the board and agency leadership has shown it is progressive in matters of theology, politics and stances on social issues. It is not helpful at all for church leaders to keep referring to evangelical renewal groups such as IRD’s UMAction program, Good News, and Lifewatch as racist, homophobic, right-wing and divisive. The church is capable of far better things.

The article in Christian Century on the Prophetic Church in Ortega’s Nicaragua is a hopeful sign. The Christian Century, with an admitted progressive perspective, is highly regarded (I have been a reader across 60 years). If it is willing to change its tune about the Sandinistas and Ortega, why could our own UM agencies not do the same?

Those of us who have not given up on the United Methodist Church are doing so not because of the leadership of the church, but because of the people in our churches whom we love, whom we pray and worship with, and with whom we are in fellowship with. Let us work toward unity and respect for one another.