War support more likely in pews than from pulpits

THE WASHINGTON TIMESntiwar rhetoric rings from many U.S. pulpits, but the people in the pews support President Bush's policy in Iraq. U.S. Christians back war with Iraq by about a 2-to-1 margin, according to the latest survey, even as many clergy have emerged as leading voices opposing Operation Iraqi Freedom. The Pew Research Center found 61 percent of churchgoers support the war versus 28 percent who oppose it.

That gap between clergy and laity is not surprising to Bishop C. Joseph Sprague of the Northern Illinois Conference of the United Methodist Church, who has been outspoken in his opposition to war.

"You see these same kind of figures when you look at other issues, when you look at gender inclusivity," he said. "I remember when you saw the same gap on issues such as race."

A conservative Methodist layman agreed the gap is not new. "This chasm between church bureaucrats in the mainline denominations versus the people in the pews is a chasm that has existed for years," said James Heidinger, chairman of the Association for Church Renewal, which advocates a return to traditional theology in Protestant churches.

"Our dilemma [in the United Methodist Church] is that about 70 percent of our membership describe themselves as 'conservative' on moral and theological issues -- and, I would add, probably on social issues as well," Mr. Heidinger said.

"But it is our leadership and those who have moved to posts in our boards and agencies, and the National Council of Churches, who are very liberal in their social views and politics."

Martin E. Marty, a leading church historian, noted that unlike the war in Vietnam, when clerical antiwar activism grew slowly as the conflict turned into a quagmire, American clergy opposed war with Iraq long before the first bombs fell. The clergy have not been so visibly opposed to the outbreak of hostilities since before Pearl Harbor in 1941, he told the Associated Press.

The Pew survey found the biggest gap of opinion on the war between shepherds and their flocks appears among Catholics and among "mainline" Protestants -- such denominations as Methodists, Episcopalians and Lutherans.

Such surveys shouldn't influence the clergy, said the Rev. Bob Edgar, general secretary of the National Council of Churches. "The prophets of the Old Testament never had a majority, never took a poll, never took a vote to see what God's will is," said Mr. Edgar, an opponent of the war.

One reason Protestant laity and clergy differ on the war, Bishop Sprague said, is that some mainline pastors are reluctant to address controversial issues. "On the part of many of our clergy, there has been a hesitancy to do the hard teaching that needs to be done on matters of peace and justice," said Bishop Sprague.

Mr. Edgar compared clergy who are afraid to criticize the war to the Sadducees and Pharisees. "I think it's the same problem Jesus had. The Sadducees and Pharisees who were the religious leaders of that day didn't want to listen to his prophetic voice," Mr. Edgar said. "They, too, were on automatic pilot and not engaged in their society. They didn't understand Jesus when he said, 'Love thine enemy.' They hated their enemies. And when he said, 'Care for the least of these, thy brothers and sisters,' they didn't get it."

Bishop Sprague said "social witness in the world" has traditionally been important to Methodists. He noted that both President Bush and Vice President Richard B. Cheney are Methodists, but said Christianity in America is "largely fascinated with individual piety, not so much with the corporate social mission."

Bishop Sprague said much argument about the war involves "just war" theory, a Christian doctrine first articulated by 5th-century theologian Augustine. "But I would posit that very few people in the pews know what the theory is," the bishop said.

Antiwar pronouncements from church leaders don't always influence the faithful because churchgoers of every denomination "tend to discriminate between what their clergy can speak to with real competence," said the Rev. Richard John Neuhaus, a Catholic priest and editor of the conservative journal First Things.

"When churchmen talk like political leaders, making prudential judgments in areas where they have no particular competence, the laity very understandably tends to discount what they say," he said. He also said that Catholic teaching says "war is sometimes justified, and even a moral duty."

An exception to the clergy-laity divide is the 16 million-member Southern Baptist Convention (SBC), where pastors and their congregations mostly see eye-to-eye on issues of war and peace.

"Southern Baptist clergy are very supportive of the war, by and large, and so are the laity," said Richard Land, chairman of the SBC's Ethics and Religious Life Committee.

That agreement "shouldn't be surprising, because each Southern Baptist congregation votes to call its own pastor," Mr. Land said. "The rank and file elect their leaders, so it would be understandable that there would be far less disconnect between Southern Baptist ministers and their church members."

Mr. Land contrasted that congregation-based selection method with other denominations, in which clergy are appointed by the church hierarchy. "No bishop tells a Southern Baptist congregation who to call as pastor. They call their own pastor," he said.

"I'd say at least 75 percent of Southern Baptists support the president's policy on Iraq, and there would be virtually no difference between the ministers and the laity," Mr. Land said. "But that shouldn't be surprising since about three out of four Southern Baptists voted for President Bush [a Methodist], against a Southern Baptist, Al Gore."

Whereas conservatives fought a long struggle to gain control of Southern Baptist seminaries, Mr. Heidinger said liberal seminaries have an important influence in mainline denominations.

Asked why mainline Protestant clergy tend to be liberal, Mr. Heidinger answered: "Unfortunately, they went to seminary. I think most of the mainline denominations have seminaries that are very liberal in their theological understandings, and they produce clergy that are liberal, both theologically as well as politically.

"When theology is no longer central in the life of the church, something inevitably steps in to fill the gap," he said, "and among mainline Protestant liberals, that something is political ideology."

Saw this on the front page of the Washington Times. I'm a Southern Baptist, so I found this interesting. One drawback with a non-heirarchical denomination is the inability to tell an individual church to kick a reprobate member out [i.e. Bill Clinton]. But the heirarchical denominations usually don't exercise that perogative anyway, and the heirarchical denominations tend to become liberal more quickly than decentralized denominations.

Look into my eyes! You Vill not Succeed !

Donate Here By Secure Server

Or mail checks to
FreeRepublic , LLC
PO BOX 9771
FRESNO, CA 93794

or you can use

PayPal at Jimrob@psnw.com

STOP BY AND BUMP THE FUNDRAISER THREAD-
It is in the breaking news sidebar!

Neuhaus is, of course, correct. But, churchmen will prattle on, trying to convince themselves as much as those they're addressing.

As always, when the media talk about "Lutherans," one must be careful not to lump all Lutherans into the same category. The liberal Lutheran clergy referred to in this sentence are undoubtedly from the ELCA. But among the other main Lutheran church bodies in America--the LCMS, the WELS, and the ELS are the next three--you would find conservative positions held by an overwhelming majority of clergy and laity alike.

When theology is no longer central in the life of the church, something inevitably steps in to fill the gap," he said, "and among mainline Protestant liberals, that something is political ideology".

Amen.

One drawback with a non-heirarchical denomination is the inability to tell an individual church to kick a reprobate member out [i.e. Bill Clinton].

I don't look at this as a drawback. Rather, it's a blessing to be able to note which assemblies belong in word, and which belong in deed.

I'll bet pastoral support for the war is probably a lot higher than 75 percent in the SBC. If it's not, then the SBC is in worse shape than I feared.

For the most part, the clergy in the Lutheran, Methodist, and Episcopalian movements are not significantly better than among the RCs (unless you consider homosexuality in the picture).

these guys proudly proclaim they are unpopular because they are "prophets".

If they bothered to read the Bible, (which I doubt) they would notice that prophets are almost never church leaders. They are usually lay people or lower clergy who are touched by the Holy Spirit.

Actually, my understanding is that mainline Protestant clergy are more likely to be homosexual than Roman Catholic priests--which is not surprising, since they are also somewhat more liberal.

The reason you don't hear about it is that the media is trying to get the Catholics to stop requiring celibacy for priests, so they harp on this subject, hoping people will assume, "Well, gosh, no wonder they're molesting children!"

Personally, I find this line of reasoning abhorrent. It's been a long time for me--not a priest, nor a Catholic--and I sure as hell am not checking out any young boys, or even grown men!

I have never heard this claim.

I do know that the Methodists began to have outspoken homosexuals several years ago, but the situation was never touted as representing a high percentage of Methodist clergymen. (I believe the Methodists were the first mainstream Protestant denomination to claim that a homosexual could continue in his homosexuality and still be a genuine Christian. This is typical of a denominational group that doesn't really believe the Bible and doesn't clearly care to hide its unbelief.)

I have never heard of any scandalous revelations about homosexuality among Lutheran or Episcopalian pastors.

Most of the Baptist and Presbyterian and "Bible Church" groups, which together comprise the overwhelming majority of Protestants, have very strong confessions repudiating homosexuality. (For that matter, the Missouri Synod Lutherans would never tolerate homosexuality in a minister.)

One of my friends, an ex-RC priest, has told me that the percentage of homosexuals in some RC seminaries is well over 25 percent and may be much higher.

My point, of course, was that the numbers do not suggest that homosexuality is as big a problem among Protestants as among RCs. Even if all of the liberal pastors were homosexual--and there is no reason whatsoever to believe that this is the case--the numbers seem to pale in significance when compared with the problems which have been identified in the RC seminaries.

Aside to Kenno: Forced celibacy does not necessarily drive RC priests to homosexuality, so this is not the point which Protestants are making against the RC doctrine of the priesthood. We think that the RC policy of forced celibacy may very well select for homosexuality.

One of my friends, an ex-RC priest, has told me that the percentage of homosexuals in some RC seminaries is well over 25 percent and may be much higher.

Yes, but there are liberal protestant seminaries that have 40 to 50 percent homosexuals, and some even allow them to room together.

Whereas the catholic seminaries that had many homosexuals are in the past. Michael Rose's book has a lot of smoke about this, but is controversial because many of the problems he confronts have since been corrected. It's like all the scandals in the catholic church: Most are about stuff that went on in the 1970s or 1980's. Most of the bishops who went along with these things have been replaced or are approaching retirement age and will be replaced...so the houses are being cleaned and will continue to be cleaned. This is NOT true in some liberal protestant churches.

Thanks for your post. I'll admit that I don't know much about liberal Protestants. They are badly outnumbered in the South.

That is one reason I still suspect that the problem in the RC movement is bigger than it is in the Protestant movement.

(Anyway, a liberal Protestant is not really a Protestant. This goes back to the doctrinal distinctives of the Protestant Reformation.)

Thank you. I agree the term "Lutheran" doesn't necessarily mean much anymore. My husband and I were once ELCA. I grew up in that church when it was a Bible believing church--before the series of mergers. We felt compelled to leave about 10 years ago. We now attend the Missour Synod Lutheran church and feel liberated.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.