Don't want to go into too much detail

[Critters2]

for reasons of confidentiality, but if you preached a Memorial Day sermon about the problems of the Church supporting warin a general sense--a sermon that didn't mention Iraq or Bush or anything specifially current--and got a letter complaining about how ungrateful you are for your freedoms...a letter from a retired high-ranking career military guy...any thoughts as to how you'd respond? No one else complained at all, and I have 4 retired "regular army" types in my church. Three haven't said a word, and were in worship today. This one wasn't.

My sermon did mention that those who serve have made sacrifices. I didn't criticise veterans. I talked in ethical terms about war and peace. Aren't we all in favor of peace?

Any criticism makes me uncomfortable. And I tried to be clear in my profile that I'm "socially, politically, and theologically liberal", so no one would be taken by surprise. My congregation is pretty liberal, too, for the most part.

This raises for me, again, my question as to whether I really would be better suited to a historic peace church. The UCC is generally silent on these issues, and is the only mainline church without a denominational peace fellowship. I'm a strict pacifist, and this is not the most comfortable place (the UCC) for that sort of thing. I know the denomination is NOT a peace church, so I'm always clear that my pacifism is me, and not UCC doctrine. Still, maybe I should be in a church where pacifism is the clear doctrinal position.

Okay, done ranting.

Any thoughts about responding to the letter?

Peace!

[okasha]

1. I'm not a Christian or an absolute pacifist, but

I'd use Isaiah 11 and point out how much freedom depends on peace--freedom from want, freedom from fear, freedom from violence, freedom to trust and engage the Other and let go of historic enmities. . .. Just my .02.

[RevCheesehead]

2. Damn, I hated getting those.

Generally (no pun intended), if a letter comes anonymously, that person is a coward, and unwilling to stand behind their statements. That kind of letter can be ignored.

But if the guy signed his name, you might invite him in for a discussion. But be sure to keep the discussion on the issues, and don't allow any of it to get personal. He calls you "ungrateful." Why? Because you and he differ on war and peace? Maybe for this guy, the only way he could justify his actions was to say it was all for the greater good of freedom. But that kind of militaristic crap is contrary to the Gospel of Jesus Christ, who calls us to LOVE, not kill, our enemies.

On the up side, at least you know they're listening. :)

[Kat45]

3. I belong to a UCC church, and our pastor frequently

preaches about peace and social justice. There haven't been any major problems with his sermons as far as I know. I wonder if the fact that it was Memorial Day was a factor in this man's reaction/his letter. That day can bring back painful memories for some people.

[Rabrrrrrr]

4. Looks like the perfect invitation for a dialogue and a conversation

Call him up, invite him out to coffee.

Good chance to do some ministry! Even if you still end up disagreeing, he should at least see that you are willing to be in dialogue and, hopefully, you can remind him that even in disagreement the covenant of Christian love and bonding is still there.

I like to go on the assumption that the person who has an issue has misheard what I said, interpreted it wrong, or that I was unclear in the communication: there must always be dialogue first, just to make sure that both sides are hearing each other clearly. Give that a try.

It seems that a lot of times that I have been in arrears with others, it's often because they missed one word (a "not", for instance), or simply totlaly misunderstood me, or, come to find out, I DID say the opposite of what I thought I said, or said something very hurtful though unintentionally.

[Critters2]

5. I've been pondering, thinking, praying,

and re-reading the letter for much of the day. One thing strikes in particular. There's a whole paragraph where he's clearly talking about the Haditha situation, which I most certainly did not mention in my sermon. He's very defensive about the news coverage, etc. And he's clearly NOT responding to my sermon, at least not in that paragraph. He's angry and in some pain about this matter, and I agree that I need to speak with him. He's angry at me for saying things I didn't say, but which he's hearing. This seems to me a pastoral opportunity, though I don't know how he'll see it. Mostly, I need to listen.

I do wish he had come to me personally, rather than writing a letter that seems to have been dashed off in the heat of anger. I agree, Rev, that I need to stand my ground as well, and not give into the militaristic crap which is in vogue, but not in the teachings of Jesus.

I serve a congregation that includes a three star general and man who was a Conscientious Objector during WW II, and everyone in between! Tricky waters to navigate! Someone's going to be unhappy occasionally, I fear.

Thanks for your responses, everyone. You've helped a lot!!

[regnaD kciN]

6. ANY church can (and should) be a "peace church"...

When I was applying for C.O. status, near the end of Vietnam, the Selective Service had just gone through a major change. Beforehand, to be recognized as a conscientious objector, one had to come from a denomination whose principles included absolute pacifism, such as the Quakers or Adventists. Due to a Supreme Court decision, it had just become possible to claim the pacifist position in any Christian denomination.

At the time I was applying, I was questioned by a fellow C.O. as to what I would say if I had to make a personal appearance before my draft board to plead my case. (As it turns out, I didn't.) One of the trickiest questions, I was warned, would be if I was asked what I thought about those Christians who don't believe that their faith requires non-violence. The reason this was tricky, I was told, was that there was a strong likelihood that at least a few members of the draft board would fall into that category, and would probably be offended if they found the subtext of my reply in any way implying that I thought they were bad Christians for not adopting my position. My answer was simple: I couldn't presume to dictate the conscience of someone else. I realized that opinions about the Christian duty in time of war have been all over the map for centuries, and that it was possible for someone, in good conscience, to come to a different conclusion than I did. I allowed that it was possible that my position was wrong, but it was the best I could come to in discerning of what Christ was calling me to do, and I could do no other than to follow it with all my being.

I suspect that the situation you're facing is much the same. The subtext that the person in question likely took away was that his life of what he perceived as service to his country was something of which he should be ashamed. The fact that you actually didn't say that probably means little to him -- the fact is, he assumed the church would reinforce him in his choices, and your words made him feel that this wasn't the case.

I think you're wise in deciding to continue the dialog further with him. While I have no business telling you how to answer, if your response is anything like mine to the potential draft board, I think he should be able to hear it without feeling that you're condemning him. (Of course, it's possible that he won't -- people might tend to tolerate different religious or ethical positions from some average person-in-the-street than they would from someone in a position of religious authority over them, such as their minister. If someone is dead-set to only attend a church where the pastor agrees with them 100% on issues that are important to them, there's nothing much you can do to keep them from leaving. But, at the risk of sounding both undiplomatic and like a refugee from the '60s, that's their trip, not yours.)

In any event, although I can't tell you what to do about staying in the UCC versus joining a "peace church," I would encourage anyone who thinks they can last in the UCC to do so. Although it's not my personal spiritual home, I am well aware that it's right up there near the top of the religious right's "hit list" of major denominations; churches they hope to either take over or divide and thus make impotent. Having a progressive cleric leave for greener pastures only makes their job a bit easier.

[GOPBasher]

7. You should talk to him personally.

That's just my advice, I don't know.

Isn't UCC one of the most, if not the most, liberal denomination? That's why I joined it. I didn't realize it's not openly anti-war.

[Rabrrrrrr]

8. One thing to remember about the UCC is that it's a bottom up structure.

General Synod only speaks TO, not FOR, the local churches; and the National Office only speaks for itself, not for the UCC. When John Thomas speaks, even when he's speaking as president and general minister of the UCC, he's still only speaking as John Thomas; he is not speaking for the UCC. If the whole collegium are of one mind and speak together on something, even then they're still only speaking for the Collegium, not for the UCC.

People (esp. ones outside the UCC) have a very hard time understanding the UCC's structure - the media, especially, still can't get it through their heads that the UCC does not speak in a unified voice, nor that the leaders speak FOR the UCC, even though every press release they send out spells out the facts of the structure. The media still talk about "The UCC believes this or that".

So, while the UCC membership, and definitely our General Synods, tend toward liberalism - and very liberal liberalism at that - not all UCC members are, and not all local churches are. THe UCC also has within it the Biblical Witness Fellowship, a very theologically conservative (though I would say theologically ignorant and hate-based, because they even give a bad name to legitimate conservative theologians) and socially conservative group; the Faithful and Welcoming movement, which is theologically and socially conservative, though not quite as hate-based as the BWF and not quite as ignorant in their thinking, but they did form specifically to be a "counter-voice" to the open and affirming movement, which is to say, that the Faithful and Welcoming movement define themselves totally in terms of homosexuality as a sin. Assholes. BWF defines itself as anti-homosexuality, anti-homosexual rights/marriage, but also for Biblical inerrancy, a reduced role for women, and basically a total buy-in to the nosstalgic but never existing "perfection" of 1950s suburban white picket fence America when there was no divorce, everyone was happy, the weather was perfect, everyone had more money than they knew what to do with and wanted for nothing, the government was adored and worshiped by the population, the military was appreciated, and authority was never questioned.

So, in other words, the UCC is not openly anti- anything, nor openly pro- anything. Local churches are, and the General Synods are, but not the UCC.

[GOPBasher]

9. Thanks for telling me all that.

I belong to a UCC church, but I didn't know much about its structure.

[Critters2]

10. I always explain UCC polity whenever I hear

"The UCC ordains gays". The UCC doesn't ordain anyone...associations ordain, and each sets its own standards. There's no true national structure for this. EVery time a pastor moves s/he must transfer standing from one association to another, complete with an interview process and a vote of acceptance by the Committee on Ministry in the association the pastor is moving into.

Some associations (okay, most) ordain gays. Some don't. Each makes this decision for itself.

And it's all very confusing for people outside the UCC--and some inside!

[Critters2]

11. The UCC tends to be VERY liberal on most social issues

but because of a strong liberationist tendency among those on the very far left, and acceptance of war as a necessity by those in the middle and right, there is almost no pacifist voice in the UCC. I often point out that a large segment of German Evangelicals were pacifist and left Prussia to avoid conscription (including some of my ancestors), so there is a history of pacifism in the UCC. BUt any real peace witness is pretty much dead. Note, again, that the UCC is the only mainline denomination with no peace fellowship. I belong to the Disciples Peace Fellowship, because there is no UCC peace fellowship.

[Critters2]

12. Here's the latest

Even after I met and talked with the guy who wrote the aforementioned letter, he complained to the chair of my Pastor/Parish Relations Committee. It came up at PPRC the other night, that he had called her to complain that I'm "preaching politics and not the Bible". Long story short, everyone agreed that I don't mix politics with religion, that I DO prech the Bible (long discussion about how inherently political the Bible is), and our moderator offered to meet with him, and make sure he understands the history and social positions of the UCC (since my meeting with him didn't make any difference--even though I thought we had had an amicable meal together).

Bottom line--much support for me, much confusion as to what he was complaining about.

I feel much better (even though I thought this had all been settled).

[Rabrrrrrr]

13. It's funny how some of these assholes see "anti-war" as "political",

but "pro-war" (or "pro-government" or "pro-corporate") as just preaching the Bible.

I offered a prayer in church once for the south pacific islanders who were being affected by France's testing of nuclear weapons (this was in '95 or so), and got taken to task by a guy for "eing political". And yet, the same church I was involved with celebrated all the military holidays, we had all the military people come in their uniforms for the July 4 worship, we did the anthems of all the military branches... and none of that was ever considered "political".

I want to take every one of those jackoff fuckbags who think that "religion" and "politics" don't go to together, and force them to read the Old Testament prophets and the Gospels and the letters and the Apocalypse of John... and explain to them that it's ALL political! Jesus said almost nothing that wasn't political. The prophets, to the end of them, said almost nothing that wasn't political.

Fuckin' assholes.

I'm glad your Pastoral Relations Committee is standing by you on this one.

[RevCheesehead]

14. Hooray for them!!

You are so very fortunate to have a committee that stands behind you. I am certain that you already know that. :hi:

[Critters2]

17. I am and I do

Much as I miss Iowa, this is a good church.

I'm trying to figure out a way to combine this church with the one I had in Iowa, to build the perfect church!

[TreasonousBastard]

15. Well, some people you just can't reach, and...

I'm glad to hear you have the support.

This guy has the problem with confusing preaching peace with preaching politics. He doesn't see the difference, and I have no idea what would make him see it. He apparently sees some value in the church, so I suppose some more effort could be made to reach him.

I was under the impression that UCC had become a Peace Church a few months ago. (UUs just made it official last month.) Ok, with your Byzantine structure, maybe that motion wasn't what I thought it was, but you did something along those lines.

As I'm sure you're aware, many denominations have peace movements and congregations within them, even though the main body may subscribe to Just War, or worse. The Witherspoon Society, Catholic Peace Fellowship, Baptist Peace Federation of North America, Every Church a Peace Church... I've worked with Methodist and Reformed peace congregations, and even the Assemblies of God were once a Peace Church until WWI did something to them. Peace is not politics unless you're running for office.

We Quakers have been doing this peace thing for 350 years and still haven't gotten it quite right, so it's understandable that there will be many misunderstandings in other denominations now sticking their toes in the peace waters that will have to be worked out.

Quakers are best known for the Peace Testimony, but the testimony on Integrity is what makes Peace and the others work. When dealing with people like this, anger, fear, disappointment... all emotions have to be set aside to walk the the path toward clearness and unity.

[Critters2]

16. No, the UCC has never declared itself a peace church *sigh*

In the 80's, I remember because there was much discussion around my seminary, there was a resolution at General Synod to declare the UCC a peace church. There were two main objections. First, that the REAL peace churches had earned the title by living their peace witness for 500 years--not by passing a resolution; and secondly, there were a lot of liberation types who were opposed to pacifism on social, political, and theological grounds. The compromise was that the UCC declared itself a "just peace church". This has had almost no impact on the denomination itself. Indeed, the UCC is the only mainline denomination without a peace fellowship. I belong to the Disciples Peace Fellowship, because there is no such beast in the UCC. There is a just peace network, which gets alerts from national staff to call congresspersons, etc. But it's not the same as actually gathering with those of like mind.

As to anything happening with this recently, nothing has. The UCC, like every other mainline church, has used its national gatherings in recent years to deal with glbt issues (with less sturm und drang and better outcomes than others, imo).

In fact, at our Conference Annual Meeting in June, at a workshop on peacemaking, I said something about being a pacifist, and two people asked if I wouldn't be more at home with the Mennonites. And sometimes I think I might.

So, no the UCC has little to no peace witness. But a girl can dream.

[RevCheesehead]

18. So, enlighten me, please....

Do the "Just Peace" people believe in peace until there is a "Just War"?

Imagine what Stanley Hauerwas would say about this!! :evilgrin:

[Critters2]

19. Sort of

At the time the resolution was passed, there was much support for guerillas in places like Nicaragua, Guatemala, etc. Those who supported them argued against pacifism, and for liberation movements that used violent means.

Don't look at me...I'm a pacifist, which gets me labelled "naive" in my "progressive" denomination.

[RevCheesehead]

20. Shocking, ain't it?

Now where did I read "blessed are the warmongers, for they shall reap what they sew?" :banghead: