Considering Green Ideology

             

This brief article concerns a divide between the political Left and Right related to the environment. It is an instructive difference, for it encompasses an understanding of economic freedom, of interpreting science, and of the role of government in addressing and solving problems. The confidence that so many have on the political Left that government does a better job than many citizens will acknowledge is not shared on the political Right. The political Right hesitates to use government authority when the market of ideas and the free exchange of goods and services will figure out whether there is an issue and if there is how to solve it.

We have a moral obligation to care for our environment. We depend upon our environment for our lives. As we continue in technological and economic growth, we need to be alert to the cleanest path toward that growth.

This brief reflection on the green ideology arises out of a practical concern that America and the West not cut itself off from an important energy resource that can enhance the possibility of human flourishing on this planet. The industrial expansion of the past several centuries and its accompanying technological advances has brought an improvement of the lives of billions of human beings. We average folks have life much easier than many of our predecessors due to those advances. Life on this planet is not easy. Human beings have struggled to survive and thrive here. Science and technology have provided a higher degree of ease and comfort and will continue to do so. However, the green ideology is prepared to lessen the quality of life for an illusion. 

         It is possible to scaremonger about climate change endlessly. The polluting of the environment is a wound that climate change activists use to dismantle free enterprise. Humanity had much to learn about how industry affected the environment. It has done so and will continue to learn more. To keep picking at this wound of the past is to generate anger toward the free enterprise system, a system that has provided a comfortable life for so many of those who participate in it. 

First, I offer a reality check about the climate history of this beautiful planet, our own Garden of Eden nested at the far reaches of its galaxy. Known for its expansive glaciers and the coldest temperatures on Earth, the Antarctica of today is quite different from its tenure as a subtropical paradise 53 million years ago, replete with palm trees, summer highs near 25°C (77 F), and frost-free winters sitting near 10°C (50 F) despite the endless darkness.

The earth has a climate history to which we need to pay attention. The historical record tells us of many warming episodes—and subsequent cooling periods—that have bedeviled humans for thousands of years. Bruce Bartlett, in an article entitled “Climate History,” June 27, 2007, shares the following information.

Plato, who lived from 427 BC to 347 BC, wrote about major climate changes that he knew in his day. Timaeusrefers to flooding causes by global warming. Critias refers to “formidable deluges.” Plato’s student, Aristotle, who lived from 384 BC to 322 BC, also recorded evidence of global warming in his work, Meteorologica. He noted that in the time of the Trojan War, the land of Argos was marshy and unarable, while that of Mycenae was temperate and fertile. “But now the opposite is the case,” Aristotle wrote. “The land of Mycenae has become completely dry and barren, while the Argive land that was formerly barren, owing to the water has now become fruitful.” He observed the same phenomenon elsewhere covering large regions and nations. Theophrastus, a student of Aristotle who lived from 374 BC to 287 BC, discussed climate change in his work, De ventis, which means “The Wind.” He observed that in Crete, “nowadays the winters are more severe and more snow falls.” In earlier times, Theophrastus said, the mountains there bore grain and fruit, and the island was more populous. However, when the climate changed, the land became infertile. In his book, “De causis plantarum,” Theophrastus noted that the Greek city of Larissa once had plentiful olive trees, but that falling temperatures killed them all. 

In the first century AD, an ancient Roman named Columella wrote an agricultural treatise called, “De re rustica.” In it, he discussed global warming that had turned areas once too cold for agriculture into thriving farm communities. Columella cites an authority named Saserna who recorded many such cases. According to Saserna, “regions which formerly, because of the unremitting severity of winter, could not safeguard any shoot of the vine or the olive planted in them, now that the earlier coldness has abated and weather is becoming more clement, produce olive harvests and the vintages of Bacchus [wine] in greatest abundance.” 

In the Middle Ages, people began recording the temperature and climate-related phenomena, such as the dates when plants began to blossom annually. They were aware of a warming trend that began around 900 and a cooling trend that began around 1300. We know that during the warm period, the Vikings established settlements in Greenland where perpetual ice had previously covered the land. Ancient Norse records tell us that they abandoned these settlements after 1250 when falling temperatures made farming less viable and spreading ice in the sea made transportation more difficult. The cooling trend led to heavy rains in 14th century Europe that were too much for the crops, leading to reduced agricultural output and numerous famines. In the 15th century, a warming trend returned, which lasted until the middle of the 16th century when temperatures again started to fall. 

By the 17th century, it was clearly apparent that a cooling trend was altering sea routes, changing the kinds of crops farmers could grow, fishing patterns and so on. Glaciers began to advance rapidly in many places and rivers that had long been ice-free year-round started to freeze in the winter. This “little ice age” continued well into the 19th century. Since then, we have been in a warming cycle that appears to have accelerated around 1950.

            It should not be surprising that greatest variable regarding the temperature of the earth throughout its history is what happens with its sun, something over which we have no control. The earth is moving around and jostled by forces over which human beings have no control. Differing orbiting patterns affect solar input. These shifts have created ice ages and the interglacial periods in which we are in now. Higher levels of CO2 track with those changes, becoming low during ice ages and high during interglacial periods.

Earth has been warming since the Little Ice Age ended 150 years ago, and its climate changes frequently. Human activities (not just CO2 emissions) affect local climate and combined have the potential to affect global climate measurably. Third, carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, albeit a minor one. The scientific debate is not about any of this. It is, rather, about the direction and magnitude of global human effects, and their significance when considered in the context of natural climate change – which has been occurring ever since Earth developed its oceans, atmosphere, and climate many eons ago.

The Earth warmed about 0.7 degrees Celsius in the 20th century. We do not know the extent to which human activity caused this. The activity is economic growth, the wealth-creation that makes possible improved well-being—better nutrition, medicine, education, etc. How much reduction of such social goods are we willing to accept by slowing economic activity to (try to) regulate the planet's climate? We do not know how much we must change our economic activity to produce a particular reduction of warming. We do not know whether warming is necessarily dangerous. Are we sure that the climate at this moment is exactly right, and that we must preserve it, no matter the cost?

The story I tell is boring. The earth warms and cools on its own naturally, usually the result of surface changes upon the sun. Imagine that. The temperature of the earth has a relationship to the sun. The earth is continually warming and cooling. I urge anyone to read the material at http://www.petitionproject.org. Read the conclusion of the document. The authors make it clear that the extent to which the earth has warmed, it means longer growing periods, lush plant life, and flourishing of animal life. It also affirms the need to explore all avenues for expanded energy sources.

         Second, free enterprise, when understood properly, is a gift of freely engaging in economic activity that encourages faith and faithfulness, hope for the future, and love for self and family in which the circle of those about whom we care keeps expanding. Poverty has been the norm for most people in history. For much of that history, looting and plundering were the means of amassing wealth. In the past century billions of people have been lifted out of poverty by capitalism. Capitalism, as Walter Williams puts it, meant that the path toward wealth was to serve your neighbor. You must get out of yourself and your needs and imagine the needs of the other and develop a means to meet that need. Capitalism encourages the development of qualities like faith in yourself, your ideas, and that others will work with you toward certain goals; a care or love for yourself and your family for which you provide material sustenance, and a hope that the future will be better than the present because of what you do in the present. It requires you to consider how you treat others, both those who work for you, those who are customers, and those who might invest in you. I do not support capitalism because of a love for money, but because of a love of freedom at all levels. Political and economic freedom are effective ways of organizing a country.

         All this is to say that a free civil society, a free economic sector, will listen to the arguments regarding the possibility of the danger in global warming and make decisions based upon what it hears. If it believes there is a problem, the creativity and ingenuity of millions of citizens is more likely to solve the problem than is the coercive force by a political ideology, politicians, and government personnel. Expanded government control over what citizens can buy is rarely the solution to a problem but will cause many more. In a democracy, if the adherents of a political ideology want to rob the public, it will need to deceive them by persuading them that the government is robbing them for their own good, inducing them to accept in exchange for their property imaginary services, and often worse (Bastiat). 

Robert Bryce (Gusher of Lies: The Dangerous Delusion of Energy Independence, 2008) has persuaded me that energy independence in the way many political leaders discuss it is not achievable. His basic point is that America is no longer the leader in energy production, and that it cannot be. It does not have enough oil in Alaska or offshore to replace what it receives from other countries. Further, the use of biofuels, wind, and sun, will do little to place a dent in the dependence that America has on foreign sources of energy. This means that America will be dealing with the unsavory characters of the Middle East for its energy. He would reject the notion that the taxpayers should subsidize alternative sources of energy. This is a matter of wasting vast sums of money. Rather, America needs to embrace the free market, and let the market determine the best sources of energy. In other words, this author is rejecting the positions of both liberal and conservative, and arguing for some realism. America also needs to move away from the military presence in the Middle East and toward a diplomatic presence. In any case, the American infrastructure of needs attention from government, and it is not getting it. The United States can gain greater independence in energy through expanded drilling for oil, biofuels, use of nuclear power, coal, natural gas, wind, and solar. If the government gets out of the picture, drilling for oil in ANWR is fine, as is drilling offshore, use of coal, and nuclear power.  

            Third, there are political decisions based upon bad science, upon lack of confidence in the free choices of producers and consumers, and far too much confidence in government, that have put western civilization at risk. The West is surrendering wise policy in favor of allegiance to pipe dreams. Then we wonder just why reality seems to keep collapsing in on us like an abandoned house. Green ideology insists we do not need nuclear and that we do not need fracking. It insists that it is just a matter of will and money to switch to all-renewables—and fast. It insists that we need “degrowth” of the economy, and that we face looming human “extinction.” Yet, healing the planet and feeling all warm and fuzzy about it has led to the harsh political reality of greater dependence on authoritarian countries like Russia.

            Standing up for Western civilization this time requires cheap, abundant, and reliable energy supplies produced at home or in allied nations. National security, economic growth, and sustainability requires greater reliance on nuclear and natural gas, and less on solar panels and wind turbines, which make electricity too expensive. 

  Ideological predilections dominate the minds of many rather than dealing with the reality of modern life. Such ideological commitments have led to foolish policy and dire results. 

Green ideology has international implications. Germany would be wise to restart its nuclear power program. The United States needs to start building nuclear power plants again. America and Canada would be wise to commit themselves to significantly expand oil and natural gas output to ensure the energy security of themselves and Europe. 

America has gone from exporting oil before Biden to begging Russia and Saudi Arabia to produce more oil. America is still the world’s leading supplier of oil and natural gas. And we have billions of dollars in investment sitting on the sidelines; refineries have been dropping offline and energy companies transitioning away from the precise forms of fuel that power the globe. 

Begging countries like Saudi Arabia and Russia to sell us more oil when we have it here would seem unwise in the extreme.  

            Given the benefits Russia receives from green ideology, it is not surprising that well-funded, radical U. S. environment groups are waging an anti-fracking war on America’s energy security, as well as interests tied directly to Vladimir Putin. Victoria Caostes and Gloria Steffano say that for years, the U.S. government has investigated Russian financial ties to environmental groups that push for ending U.S. fossil fuel production and have successfully shut down fracking sites and pipelines, to the detriment of U.S. workers and consumers. 

            Americans should start paying closer attention to the ongoing farmer protests in the Netherlands, which transformed long swaths of Dutch highways into what looked like a post-apocalyptic warzone: roadside fires raging out of control, manure and farming detritus heaped across highways, traffic stalled for miles, and massive protests across the country in support of the farmers. Why is the Netherlands, of all places, experiencing such unrest? Americans need to understand what is happening over there because the ruinous climate policies that triggered these protests are precisely what President Joe Biden and the Democrats have in mind for the United States.

            The story of Sri Lanka, a small island nation in Southeast Asia, is disturbing to me. It is on the verge of total political and economic collapse after its president’s “green” policies have brought famine to the island’s 21 million people. From the 1970s to 2020, with the help of synthetic fertilizers, Sri Lanka had become self-sufficient in rice production. Sri Lanka once had a per capita income twice that of nearby India. Now it cannot feed or fuel itself. Sri Lanka’s government fell under the spell of the “green” revolution promoted by Western liberal elites. Advised by the Rockefeller Foundation, Sri Lankan President Gotabaya Rajapaksa promised to transition the nation’s agriculture industry to organic farming within ten years. In April 2021, he banned “the importation and use of synthetic fertilizers and pesticides and order[ed] the country’s 2 million farmers to go organic,” according to Foreign Policy magazine. The Western green revolutionists were so pleased that they bestowed Sri Lanka with a near-perfect Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) score of 98, much higher than the United States’ score of 51. But Sri Lanka’s adoption of green policies brought nothing but disasters. Its rice production has dropped more than 50 percent, while domestic rice prices have increased more than 80 percent. Once sufficient in rice production, the nation has been “forced to import $450 million worth of rice.” The Sri Lankan people, angry and hungry, staged protests and stormed both the president’s residence and prime minister’s office. President Rajapaksa resigned and fled the country. Sri Lanka is the tip of the iceberg of how “green” policies promoted by Western liberal elites have brought miseries and instability worldwide. There are currently three countries in the world with an ESG score over 90: Sri Lanka, where government just collapsed. Ghana, where the national power supply has shut down. Netherlands, where farmers have revolted against the state green energy is a deadlier virus than covid When it comes to the Dutch government’s calculations of ammonia and nitrogen oxide deposition—the basis of climate mandates that would slash livestock numbers and put many farmers out of work—Hanekamp is especially critical of “the science.” He thinks it relies on vague definitions, excessive deference to expert judgment, and a narrow focus on costs rather than both costs and benefits. “We now treat farmers as polluters, end of story, which is a very strange perspective,” he said. The result was endemic crop failure. Cash crops for export failed. Widespread hunger followed. Without foreign exchange, it became impossible to import key staples like food and fuel. Unfortunately, its incompetent government trusted radical environmental advisers, many of them foreign experts. Sri Lanka believed it could become the darling of the “environmental, social, governance” movement, and in that way draw in unlimited Western progressive investment. Instead, it has embraced a policy of national suicide.

             Los Angeles, because the city is phasing out natural gas hookups in all new residential and commercial buildings effective Jan. 1, 2023. But LA is not alone. It is California’s 57th locality to introduce commitments to phase out natural gas, and many cities across the country are following suit. In a misguided effort to reduce emissions, localities that pass ordinances like these totally ignore just how vital natural gas is not only for our broader energy landscape, but also for families and businesses. Nationwide, natural gas accounts for 38% of electricity generation, and around 177 million Americans use natural gas to heat their homes and cook their meals. Beyond its prevalence, natural gas is also an affordable source of energy. Residential natural gas is estimated to cost almost one-quarter the price of electricity, which, according to the American Gas Association, adds up to an average annual savings of over $1,000 in household utilities. And natural gas is a clean source of energy. The U.S. Energy Information Administration notes that “burning natural gas for energy results in fewer emissions of nearly all types of air pollutants and carbon dioxide (CO2) than burning coal or petroleum products to produce an equal amount of energy.”

            Rigging the market to force us to buy a car that has a 200-mile reach and uses erratic and expensive energy when we already have increasingly efficient models in the driveway and tens of billions of easily accessible barrels of offshore fossil fuels here at home — and much more around the world. We have centuries’ worth of the stuff waiting in the ground. Which gives us enough time to produce some better ideas. Transitioning away from modernity and into windmills, choo-choo trains, folding fans, and candles is not progress, it is regression.

         The science does not support the green ideology, if the green ideology is accurate, market forces will solve the problem, but in the meantime, government needs to leave producers and consumers alone to assess whether there is a problem and if there is how to solve it.

 

Considering Abortion and the Supreme Court Decision of 2022

           

            The decision by the Supreme Court in 1973 to take away the consideration of abortion away from the states and declare it a right contained in the constitution rather than as a matter for the people to decide in their various states was not a constitutional or wise move. That decision showed lack of respect for the constitution and the willingness to circumvent the constitution to get a result people wanted. That decision has led to unnecessary division. Other liberal democracies have changed abortion policies through democracy. When the perspective of the people or their values of the people change, this is the peaceful means by which liberal democracies change. The country has needed a peaceful way of resolving its differences regarding this matter.

I want to discuss some matters related to abortion that became part of the news cycle in 2022. Before I do so, I should disclose that my belief that humanity is created in the image of God and the protection of human life is a divine command. 

            One could argue that the decision by the Supreme Court has breathed new life into our democratic institutions, returning the issue to the states and to the people where it resided until an earlier Court took that right away. Unfortunately, it took 60 million unborn dead, 50 million of which occurred in the first trimester, before the Supreme Court corrected the error of Roe.

            Among the surprises for me in the Pew Research Center study of political typologies is the lack of reference to abortion for any of them. The Democrat Party, through the pressure of the progressive part of the political Left, seems committed to one of the least defensible policy positions regarding abortion: that ending human life in the womb should be legal for any reason up until the moment the baby is being born. The denial of all rights to the unborn is integral to what they understand to be women’s constitutionally protected rights, without which they will cease to be citizens with equal rights as their male counterparts. If women are not allowed to kill their unborn babies, they will be stripped of their full humanity. 

The Women’s Health Protection Act is a bill the political Left would like to become the law of the land. It would go much further than did Roe v Wade. It would prohibit any government—federal, state, or local—from taking any action that could, even potentially, reduce the likelihood of abortion. 

The legislation would require all governments everywhere to repeal any pro-life laws, regulations, or policies that might already be on the books. Three-quarters of the states, for example, have laws requiring either parental consent or notification before a minor may get an abortion. Nationally, 70% of Americans—including 57% of Democrats—favor at least the latter. The Supreme Court upheld such laws under Roe, but the Women’s Health Protection Act would make requiring any kind of parental involvement impossible.

More than 70% of those surveyed oppose diverting federal tax dollars to support abortion, including a majority of those who identify as “pro-choice.” The Supreme Court repeatedly held that Roe did not require government to subsidize abortion, but the Women’s Health Protection Act would require it.

Most Americans believe that health care workers with religious objections should not be forced to participate in abortion. The Supreme Court has applied the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act to protect the exercise of religion from coercive, pro-abortion government policies. This bill explicitly makes RFRA inapplicable to any situation that involves abortion.

Even when inventing a right to abortion, the Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade referred dozens of times to women, mothers, and “unborn children.” In fact, the high court held that the presence of a second human being meant that the so-called right to privacy was not unlimited.

Even the proposed Women’s Health Protection Act, as recently as 2019, used “woman” or “women” three dozen times and stated its purpose as protecting “a woman’s ability to determine whether and when to bear a child.” The current version deletes all but one use of “women” (in the bill title) and now states its purpose as protecting “a person’s ability to determine whether to continue or end a pregnancy.”

This bill does not restore Roe v Wade but goes well beyond it in imposing the most extreme progressive view of abortion upon the nation. From a political conservative perspective, here is an issue that belongs to the states and to the people, with the federal government extending its power into areas it is not constitutionally allowed to go. 

            Let us put the abortion issue in an international perspective. The United States is one of only seven countries that allow elective abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy. That puts America in the company of not only Canada, Singapore, and the Netherlands, but communist, totalitarian regimes North Korea, China, and Vietnam. Most Western European countries prohibit abortion after 15 weeks of pregnancy or less, which is what the Mississippi law that prompted the Dobbs case would do, an article in the Washington Examiner explained. Germany allows an abortion in the first 12 weeks of pregnancy. The Nordic countries of Denmark, Norway, and Finland, allow abortion in the first 12 weeks, with exceptions. France also allows abortion until 12 weeks, but a woman may get permission from two doctors to get an abortion after the first trimester. In Spain, abortion is available for any reason until the 14th week, and in unusual circumstances, such as the mother’s health, up to 22 weeks. In Sweden, the limit on when an abortion may be performed is 18 weeks, a month longer than the Mississippi law. Iceland allows abortion for up to 22 weeks. The Netherlands and the United Kingdom both allow abortions for up to 24 weeks in most cases. These countries all provide exceptions.

            If we look at polls, most Americans think that, especially in the first trimester, it is permissible to resolve the claims to constitutional protection in favor of the mother. A significant majority—about 85 percent—consistently tell pollsters they believe abortion in the first trimester is permissible. More than 90 percent of the abortions that are performed are in the first trimester. Most Americans do not see the typical abortion as something that should be punishable in the way that murder is punishable.

            We are temporal creatures. We have a beginning of our time. Pondering the meaning that we have a beginning is not something that philosophers do often. We have an allotted time that has a beginning and end.

Natality and the miracle of the beginning are central to considering the human condition. The capacity of human beings to give birth to new realities means a constant need to reconsider the basics of the human condition. It is quite reasonable to expect the unexpected, and that new beginnings cannot be ruled out. Yet, this means that human beings can lack control of the effects of such beginnings. In this case, modern, automated societies engrossed by ever more efficient production and consumption encourage us to behave and think of ourselves simply as an animal species governed by natural laws. This suggests the vital importance for civilized existence of a durable human world, built upon the earth to shield us against natural processes and provide a stable setting for our mortal lives. Thus, human action is the process which human beings act together to make the world an increasingly friendly place in which human beings live. 

            Nathanel Blake has said it well. Pregnancy is the normal reality of human reproduction. This normalcy, in turn, reminds us that we were all once utterly dependent in utero, and that most of us will be dependent again, whether from illness, injury, or old age. In short, we are all the violinist. Human solidarity recognizes this shared dependence. Ignoring it, or trying to avoid it, has been a great failure of the liberal political tradition. Liberal discourse privileges independent, rational adults (or at least adults who imagine themselves such). But independent, rational adults do not need solidarity, they need a non-aggression pact and mechanisms for conflict resolution—which is what classical liberal theorists such as John Locke sought to provide. In contrast, solidarity begins with the truth that dependence and weakness saturate our shared humanity. Instead of boasting that we are born free and rational, solidarity knows that we are born vulnerable, and only attain limited freedom and rationality through the care and teaching of others. An ethos of solidarity knows not only that we are always at risk of a relapse into physical dependence, but that our mental, emotional, and relational needs also make us dependent on others for fulfillment and happiness. 

            Cherishing life and protecting life is the responsibility of each of us that finds expression in political life and the constitution. 

            Part of cherishing life means that conservatives who support the Court decision may need to consider social policy implications of such an ethos of solidarity. The American Enterprise Institute has suggested that a post-Roe policy environment can be an opportunity for the political Right to renew its commitments to the value of work and the importance of the married, two-parent family. This means re-thinking the child tax credit to increase it, beginning with pregnancy, and lasting until the 18th birthday of the child, making the full credit available to more working families.

            The Supreme Court decision of 2022 could lead to cherishing the constitution, cherishing plurality and rational debate in the public square, and cherishing life. That would be a result that could lead to human flourishing in our life together.

 

Reflecting on the 2022 Mid-term Election

          

 I read with interest the predictions by many of a red wave. Newt Gingrich was one. The Republicans could see large gains in both chambers of Congress in the Nov. 8 elections. He thought 53-57 seats in the Senate and 44 up in the House. FiveThirtyEight, a non-partisan forecaster, estimated there is a better than four in five chance that Republicans win the House. It also predicted, for the first time since July, that Republicans are likely to capture a majority in the Senate as well. The model from RealClearPolitics shows that the GOP will control the Senate with 54 seats, as compared to Democrats’ 46 seats. It predicted that Republicans will now likely take seats in Arizona, Nevada, Georgia, Pennsylvania, and New Hampshire.

            I was confident the GOP would do well in Florida, and it did. I was not so confident about the rest of the country. I was not sensing such a red wave. Newt Gingrich admitted that he has never been so wrong about the results of an election, and he would need to spend some time reflecting on why. “It makes me challenge every model I’m aware of and realize that I have to really stop and spend a good bit of time thinking and trying to put it all together.” He did point to one bright spot. A vote tracking sheet by the Cook Political Report, a bipartisan newsletter that analyzes elections, which shows a 50.7 million Republican turnout for the House—outnumbering Democrat votes by 6 million. Gingrich noted this gap could shrink to 5 million when ballots in deep blue California are fully processed. “But it’s still 5 million more votes.” It also estimated that Republicans got 52.3% of the vote for the House compared to 46.2% of the vote for Democrats. That 6.1% margin was greater than the 2.5% generic Republican advantage from the average of the national polls just before the election.

            In terms of results, leaders like Ron DeSantis, Brian Kemp, Greg Abbott, J.D. Vance, Ted Budd, and so many others who are committed to conservative principles. From the conservative perspective, candidates among the progressives like Beto O’Rourke, Stacey Abrams, and Charlie Crist and voters in Texas, Georgia, and Florida, respectively, soundly rejected them.

            The money raised by Democrats is far greater than that raised by the GOP, according to www.opensecrets.org. However, spending by the GOP was greater. This means the Democrat Party will have a much larger campaign war chest for the next election. In case you are wondering, George Soros was the largest contributor to campaigns, all to Democrat candidates. Thus, when J. D. Vance says that money was the reason for the Democrat success, I respectfully disagree. 

            I kept track of the prediction by Newt because I hoped what he predicted would happen. I have much respect for him. However, I was skeptical. Thus, this is a time when I wish I could talk with Newt. If I could, I would say two things.

            The first thing I would say is that he did not consider the part of the political Left that we can describe as progressive. It is not that their numbers are large, if we accept the Pew Center numbers. However, the progressive part of the Left is highly motivated and politically engaged. In primaries and in mid-term elections, they will have an outsized influence. One unique aspect of the progressive is that in comparison even with other members of the Left, they harbor anger and hostility toward conservatives and the GOP. This is highly motivating. Although Donald Trump energized them in this, they were angry with conservatives before that. Conservatives represent to them a respect for the Constitution, the history of the country, and the positive role America plays in the world that the progressive does not share. The alienation the progressive feels from the country and from Western civilization is real and deep. Here are some signs of your alienation from the country: you do not like the 4th of July, Columbus Day, or Thanksgiving Day. Such national days are simple expressions of gratitude for this nation, its history, its liberties, and its role in the world. Such simple acts are not ways to deify the nation or have a “love it or leave it” attitude. Like every nation, certain days are special and honored not because the nation is perfect, but precisely because it aspires to build upon its past and become a better nation. The progressive looks upon the country as systemically racist and its political, economic, and cultural institutions in need of an overhaul, the conservative blocks their path to accomplish this. I was encouraged that V. D. Hanson noted that this motivation, especially by the under 30 group and single women, was not picked up by many pollsters. Thus, regardless of the inflation, the reduction of the stock market, the involvement in foreign wars, the risks of open borders, the increase of violence in major cities, the abuses of power, and the weakness of many of the Democrat candidates, they will do all they can to keep the GOP out of power.

            The second thing I would say to him is that his appreciation for Donald Trump blinded him to what the present effect of Trump is upon the GOP. Given the fundamentals of this election cycle, the open seats in Pennsylvania, Georgia, New Hampshire, Arizona, and Nevada should have been easy wins. Instead, they were weighed down by the Trump name and the stupid Jan. 6 incident that everyone wants to forget about except Donald Trump and those who leverage his obsession with it into a leftist passion. Trump could have remained silent during the primaries and allow the GOP to work out its issues separate from his advice, but it was not in his nature to do so. He promoted individuals in certain campaigns who were like him in thinking of the 2020 election as stolen from him. Voters have decided, rightly in my view, that the election was fairly decided. Doug Mastriano in Pennsylvania, Tudor Dixon in Michigan, Dan Cox in Maryland, Tim Michels in Wisconsin, have lost, and Kari Lake in Arizona may also lose. He picked out Don Bolduc for special negative treatment and saying he deserved defeat in a campaign that should have been won in the toss-up state of New Hampshire. He also celebrated the defeat of moderate Republican Joe O’Dea. Yet, some important Trump-supported candidates did win, including J. D. Vance in Ohio and Ted Budd in North Carolina.

           With Ron DeSantis and his strong victory in Florida along with the rest of the GOP, Trump was taking potshots at “Ron DeSanctimonious.” Telling him to back off a presidential run was the last straw for me and many conservatives. In Georgia, Gov. Brian Kemp handily defeated Democratic darling Stacey Abrams, despite Trump’s personal attempts to defeat Kemp in his primary—again, due to Kemp’s failure to illegally flip the state to Trump in the 2020 election. Georgians trust Kemp; he won.

            To be clear, my approach to Trump has been ad hoc, meaning I considered him policy by policy. I did not vote for him in 2016. When I moved to Florida, a state where I thought my vote might matter, I did vote for him. I am not sorry about that vote. I believe retirement accounts and the economy would have been much better with Trump as President, the border would be secure, less money spent in Ukraine, and many other positive effects. I have never accepted the racist-fascist label certain groups lay upon him. For me, his work in NYC, NBC, and his dating of a black model, put such ideas to rest. 

            However, conservatives are now at a point where Trump, who has declared his candidacy for the GOP nomination, will be destructive to the conservative cause, which is my primary concern. I would be pleasantly surprised if he conducted his campaign by focusing on the issues that divide him from other candidates and accept the results of the primaries. This would mean setting aside his usual recklessness and arrogance exhibited in trashing his opposition. My concern is that if Trump follows his usual pattern but does not receive the nomination, enough of his voters will sit out the election to have an impact. If he does win the nomination with his usual pattern, many conservatives will sit out the election, not being able to go with someone who could not accept defeat and who attacks successful GOP elected officials. If this scenario occurs, we are headed toward an election like that of 1964, where the conservative cause suffered in the House and Senate elections, as well as losing the presidency. 

            My take is that Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis emerges as a dominant force in conservative politics. His landslide win in Florida carried all down-ticket statewide candidates throughout Florida, which has become as utterly red as California has turned all blue. In addition, there are so many other good leaders on the conservative side: Nikki Haley, Kristi Noem, Tim Scott are among them.

U. S. Constitution: Free Speech, Cancel Culture, Shadow-banning, Doxing, and Fake News

           

  My concern is that as America divides into various differentiated groups, the members of the group limit conversation enough to within the group, resulting in the deepening of their conviction that they are right and other groups are wrong. It is important to differentiate oneself from others, a sign of maturity at every level. It is also important to have a vision of concern for human flourishing through rational action. This involves the simple recognition that if you want your life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, you must tolerate the life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness of the other (David Rubin). What hinders that concern and rationality is that the tendency today is to marginalize the groups that differ significantly from them in their thinking, and if they get cultural, economic, or political power, they use it to marginalize any opposition to their group. 

            Among the more dangerous signs of our times is the growing number of individuals and groups who believe that no one can disagree with them for any honest reason (Thomas Sowell). People just do not talk truly anymore — and in the dark silence within, they are lost. As 1960s songwriter Paul Simon put it, in words familiar to anyone of the baby boomer generation:

 

And in the naked light I saw,

Ten thousand people, maybe more — 

People talking without speaking,

People hearing without listening;

And their words like silent raindrops fell,

And echoed in the wells of silence.

 

            The authoritarian instinct is strong, for power corrupts. Simply put, thinking is difficult, which is why most people prefer to judge (Carl Jung). I am arguing that this process diminishes us all. It undercuts what might be good in the ideas and actions of other groups, and it undercuts what might be good in your own group. To put the concern in political terms, whether the target is to the right or to the left makes no difference to the dangers of such language and actions. We need to recover the simple wisdom that no one heals oneself by wounding another (St. Ambrose). Tearing to shreds people from other groups is by its nature a destructive practice, but it is usually an inaccurate picture of the other groups as well. There are no signs of either side acknowledging the common ground they share (Philip Clayton, Transforming Christian Theology Page 90 · Location 1765, Page 120 · Location 2284).

            Language involving fascism and insurrection are good examples. Such language expresses a deep anger toward political opponents. It also stimulates anger in the group at the receiving end of such language. Whether from the Left or Right, fascism receives condemnation. The 50 million deaths that were the result of fascist policies ought to be enough to convince us that no one, whether George W. Bush, Barak Obama, Donald Trump, or Joe Biden, deserves this label. As I would put it, history is not repeating itself in this regard today, nor is it even rhyming. The accusation tells me more about the one making it than the target of the accusation. It tells me you have an anger toward your opponent. It is your way of making the political other so irrational or evil that the other does not deserve either respect or rational engagement. This opens the door for a pure power struggle. It is also a way to stir up anger, which Jesus said is the place in the heart from which violence emerges.

            In 1877, Frederick Douglass met with his former slave owner, Thomas Auld. The health of Auld was failing. The two wept as they discussed the past before parting ways cordially. For any nation to move forward in its history, it must leave behind vengeance and resentment regarding past wrongs. Every generation will have its sins for which it will need forgiveness from future generations. Moving confidently toward the future will need forgiveness, which always means acknowledging that something wrong has taken place. Harboring resentments, whether by individuals or by the various groups in a culture, will always result in harming oneself.

            Elements on both sides see their political opponents more as evil than as wrong. That is the true danger for America. This distinction is illustrated by comments made about conservative Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas by two of the left’s biggest stars: Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor and former first lady Hillary Clinton. Sotomayor might be the most liberal Supreme Court justice. Yet, when speaking about Thomas in front of a liberal activist audience, she said:

 

            I suspect I have probably disagreed with him more than with any other justice, that we have not joined each other’s opinions more than anybody else. … He is a man who cares deeply about the court as an institution, about the people who work there. … I think we share a common understanding about people and kindness toward them. That’s why I can be friends with him and still continue our daily battle over our difference of opinions in cases.

 

Hillary Clinton also talked about Thomas. Contrast her take with Sotomayor: “I went to law school with him. He’s been a person of grievance for as long as I’ve known him. Resentment, grievance, anger.” To Clinton, Thomas is just an angry black man.

            Such thinking leads to identity politics and cancel culture, challenging free speech and threatening to silence Americans. As I would see it, Americans need to protect language or ‘be rendered speechless.’ It seems like progressives have siloed themselves to the point where their views are uncontroversial and thus the other side does not exist. If their side is not popular, they want to ban or cancel an opposing view. The idea is that by pretending opposition to your ideas does not exist, you can mainstream those ideas. But what if everybody does not believe such propositions? What if there are millions of Americans, even if not a majority, who believe precisely the opposite? Then the only option is to reinforce denial with censorship. It seems like the progressive is on a messianic mission that views anything not advancing its agenda as a menace. Which is why former President Barack Obama senior adviser Dan Pfeiffer went on the air at MSNBC to declare the very popularity of any conservative viewpoint is a threat to democracy. 

A curious example is involved with Salman Rushdie. The fatwa pronounced upon him was a battle within the war for free speech. His Satanic Verses continues to be published. However, it has become common to attack anyone who says political Islam is illiberal as morally unacceptable because it causes offense to Islam. We might think of this as censorship by fear. Yet, for saying it here, some would label me as Islamophobic. I am okay with offending Islamic theocrats and will not self-censor, but those within the progressive movement seem to want to cancel such views. Purging divergent views from digital platforms, targeting average conservative organizations, users, and speech, is part of the push this direction. Such secret algorithms conceal shadow-banning and bottlenecking. We are dealing with an infringement upon free speech. It feels like a danger to the entire notion of a free public square in which we can explore ideas. The fact that Facebook and Twitter, as well as other businesses, have embedded themselves in progressive ideology that advances a political agenda of one political party is a real and present danger.

Here is an ethical exercise that involves placing yourself in the shoes of the other. If you are a progressive, imagine a world in which Big Tech acted like true capitalists and resisted government intrusion into their affairs. Imagine further that they supported the party that promotes free enterprise. Imagine the outrage on the Left of the alliance between wealthy elites and the GOP, especially if during elections Big Tech did all it could to limit access to the ideas of the Left. You know the outrage that occur on the Left. 

My point is that social media began as providing a platform for people to freely engage with others. Those who started it became wealthy on that basis. They were a place where free speech reigned. It operated under the reasonable assumption that free speech is its own regulator. Truth will eventually drown out falsehood. The best way to combat falsehood is not to ban it but allow it to be opposed with the truth. They were not entities of the government, so they could have begun with any rules they wished. Once the originators became wealthy and devoted to the progressive political cause, they decided to act in harmony with the Democrat Party to do what they could to defeat conservatives. They are hypocrites, a common human trait. A significant transformation occurred in social media. They have created platforms that have grown to be so pervasive that they are more like common carriers or utilities. The massive monopoly they have in social media demands that they receive different treatment under the law, given that genuine competition will not be possible as a protection against their possession of monopolistic power. They have as much right to demote or censor viewpoints as does a telephone company. They should serve everyone equally. If they do not, political action needs to be action to ensure they do so. The response of progressive to the Musk takeover of Twitter reveals that they thought of the media outlet as belonging to them. Opening it up so that it treats all people equally was not part of their plan. Apple has provided me with many worthwhile products and I am now completely within their system, so it dismayed me that they started down this path, even though they have since backed down.

            Related to cancel culture is doxing, the push to reveal those who contribute to political campaigns. It involves making someone’s confidential information public. It is against the law to do so, but I want to be clear that it would limit free speech to change the law. Some claim to want to know who is contributing to political campaigns, claiming their concern for the corrupting influence of money. That sounds innocent enough until one considers the political climate of anger that would express itself in multiple ways, including shaming, abusing the family, and boycotting. My deeper concern is that money does not corrupt anyone. However, the love of money is the root of all kind of evil (I Timothy 6:10). The issue is not the financial contribution but the person who is receiving it. If the people we elect are both devoted to a cause and persons of integrity, then there is not issue. We have to be discerning voters in that regard. Doxing  reveals home addresses, phone numbers, financial histories, medical records—anything that one can find in the endless databases available to canny hackers. Doxing can be a drive-by prank on most anyone who draws attention. But more often its targets are singled out for humiliation and ridicule. Doxing is extreme and rare. But it marks the limit of a trend that affects every one of us: aspects of our lives that were once private and fleeting can now be publicly, and permanently, exposed. Embarrassing events that were once limited to whoever was there, if caught on a smart phone, can live with us forever. The fact that we are not obliged to publicly attach our names to all political donations is endlessly frustrating to those intent on smearing and intimidating their political opponents. Anonymous speech is as much a part of “democracy” as marching in the streets or writing a newspaper column. In a healthy liberal media environment, reporters would be demanding answers from those abusing power, not working with them to inhibit political speech (David Harsanyi).

            Related to these matters is the label of fake news. The concern for disinformation is valid, but too often, those who claim to have this concern become its biggest promoters. The point is that free speech is its own regulator. Dependence on canceling or censoring obstructions the circulation of facts. It prevents any worthwhile exchange of ideas. If you need to silence your opposition, then your ideas do not persuade. If you cannot accept that, you have an authoritarian impulse that with which you need to deal. 

            Americans today have inherited a rich tradition of debate and reform that they are in danger of squandering through rage, anger, and bitterness. This country has an intellectual heritage that includes a mixture of Enlightenment thought (Locke, Hume, Kant, Hegel) and theology (Deism of Kant, evangelicalism of Whitfield and Edwards) that helped shape the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the first ten amendments to it. We can be thankful for a political process that allows for reform of its political, economic, and cultural institutions. Cutting ourselves off from the positive benefits of gratitude runs the risk of drowning us in a sea of anger.

            The first amendment is dear to the hearts of most Americans because it allows us to see where we are located (Roger Rosenblatt, Fall Special Issue of Life Magazine, 1991, p. 9). Huck Fin spoke his piece and discovered who he was. All that happened in a single famous passage with Huck, in anguish because he is harboring the runaway slave Jim, thinks his problem through. He knows that he is breaking the rules of society, and he is sure that God disapproves. He writes to Miss Watson, the owner of Jim, to turn in Jim, but he cannot bring himself to mail the letter, as he recalls their adventures on the river and the kindnesses Jim showed him. Certain he will be damned forever, he tears up the letter and says to himself: “All right, then, I’ll go to hell.” Such a passage is both a beautiful example of free expression and a demonstration of why free expression matters. It matters and is invaluable because it encourages character to develop. Huck had no idea what he really thought about human equality until he let his mind travel, as on a river, into the problem. He learned who he was because he was free to find out. Where this journey of self-discovery should lead, if we are doing it right, is away from self-interest and toward some common benefit. Huck risks damnation solely because he acknowledges the equal work of another person. 

            And free means completely free. The hope is that eventually individual freedoms will produce more decent people rather than scoundrels. The first amendment is based on this hope that citizens, left to their own rafts and rivers, will behave well toward each other. The belief in potential human virtue underlies the idea of the Bill of Rights. The document is a tough guardian of that belief. Having rights is not doing what is right, but they are connected. The words of the First Amendment gird Americans to the free expression and exercise of ideas, civil and religious, in speech and in print, and through peaceful demonstrations. The point is that the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market. America is the experiment of whether such a hope is valid.

United Methodist Church & Global Methodist Church

 

Saying goodbye is not easy, so I feel the pain of those congregations and pastors who are leaving the United Methodist Church. My situation as a retired pastor of the United Methodist Church, one who has moved away from his home conference in Indiana, and one who has not immediately re-engaged after retirement, means an existential crisis does not face me in the split of the UMC. I choose to remain in a denomination that is changing into something different from that which I joined in 1982. I am not sure the forming Global United Methodist Church would accept me. However, I have been in favor of such a split for a decade or more, but now that it is on the immediate horizon, I offer a few words.

            For the United Methodist Church, I wish nothing but the best. I have agreed with your Wesleyan-Arminian theology. I have appreciated the spiritual roots of John Wesley in the protestant and catholic devotional tradition. I have appreciated the evangelical tradition of Wesley, Edwards, and Whitefield, and the rich heritage of the revivalist tradition. I have preached and taught the grace of God as prevenient, justifying, and sanctifying in its transforming power. I have preached and taught the priority of scripture, the value of tradition in guiding our reflections upon scripture, the use of our rationality to understand it all properly, and the application of what we believe to hearts and lives.  That tradition has had a keen sense of uniting the gospel with care for the social stresses of each generation. I appreciate the classical liberal tradition of openness to contemporary thought and to social involvement. I love the United Methodist Church. Nothing has changed my love for the UMC. If it remains true to its mission of making disciples of Jesus Christ for the transformation of the world, then our hearts unite, and we are friends of the gospel of Jesus Christ.

            Having an honest conversation is difficult. Our post-modern differentiation into various groups creates an environment that looks suspiciously and condescendingly toward those with whom our group disagrees and embeds us further into the group with which we identify. Respect for our commonality in our creation as the image of God and in our goal of the Holy Spirit conforming us into the image of the Son seems lost amid our differentiation. The most heart-wrenching issue of all, however, is that the world needs Jesus, now more than ever. As the world dissolves into increasing differentiating into groups that justify anger and violence toward others, the responsibility of the church to point the way to Jesus becomes harder to fulfill. The external pressure would be difficult enough. The church has increased the pressure on itself as it experiences multiple cultures. 

            I do have concerns regarding the emerging expression of United Methodism. 

            One concern is the abuse of power by the bishops. The UMC has established a tradition that if bishops disagree with the decisions of General Conference, they have the right to view themselves as being prophetic and heeding the next progressive calling as a word from God. Their pledge to govern by the discipline no longer means what it used to mean. Gone are the days when one could say that they disagree with the Book of Discipline but will govern by what it says. I view this as a danger to the denomination.

            Two is the concern that while the denomination has made the embrace of a non-traditional approach to sexuality a dividing-line between the good and righteous position versus the bad and evil position of the traditional approach, the risk is a new form of fundamentalism and self-righteousness. Leaders of the denomination seem willing to sit in judgment of not only two millennia of Christian tradition, but well over three-fourths of the Christians in the world today. Leadership sits in judgment of those who hold to the traditional view of human sexuality within the UMC.

            Regarding sexuality, we can all agree that sexual desire is strong for most human beings. We can also agree that few Christians have adhered to the highest ideals of Christian teaching in this area. We can agree that we need to have much grace toward each other in this critical area of our lives. I hope we can agree that there are some forms of sexual expression that are beyond the approval of the church. I may disagree with the leadership of the UMC as to where that line might be but assume we can agree that there are proper lines to draw. I am sure you do not think that our love for our neighbors means we must embrace what they believe or what they do. In the area of human sexuality, you make it sound as if it is impossible for me to love people who do not embrace traditional Christian expressions of our sexuality. I strongly disagree.

            When I give myself time to reflect upon my four decades with the United Methodist Church, I question two oft-quoted but rarely practiced values today. One is that United Methodism is a big tent. Such a notion may be impossible in our post-modern age of differentiation. As one who has come to accept conservative political beliefs and as one who values the traditional beliefs of the church, the United Methodist Church does not feel like it has a large enough tent to include me. Thus, my concern is that as it gravitates toward beliefs and values embraced by the current expression of progressive thinking, it will subordinate any theological positions it takes to a progressive political ideology. The UMC claims it is a global church. Yet, the agenda of many American church leaders is to distance the American church from the African and Asian churches, which are in the process of becoming the home of more United Methodists than does American Methodism. 

            I think the United Methodist Church lost a fantastic opportunity. It could have separated itself from the narrow fundamentalism of some groups and invite people into thoughtful, biblical reflection. It could separate Itself from the narrow progressive ideology that pervades the academic, entertainment, and media worlds. It could have been an agent of healing during the divisive American political climate in the way it encouraged respectful conversation within the bounds of the covenant as represented in the Book of Discipline. It could refuse to march in lock step with neither the progressive movement nor with the political right. It did not have to continue the colonial spirit toward brothers and sisters in Christ in other lands. It could have had the opportunity of engaging fellow believers in thoughtful biblical and theological discussion. It could discuss matters of truth. It could discuss what constitutes good, holy, and sanctified lives. If it genuinely wanted a way forward, the possibility was present to do so. It could do so in way that unites with the concerns of Roman Catholic and Orthodox traditions, recognizing that a conciliar approach to the practice of theology is the wisest course when considering major changes. John Wesley provides an example of drawing from the Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant traditions in forming his view of Christian perfection. It could engage the matter of human sexuality in a comparable way. It needed to exercise great care that theology does not follow the whims of the current cultural and intellectual climate. In other words, rather than alienating itself from so much of historic Christianity around the globe, the UMC could open the door to deeper conversation.  

            Most of the bishops as well as general boards and agencies long for acceptance within the progressive ideology in American politics. It embarrasses them that the UMC has stood firm on a traditional view of human sexuality. Its abortion stance is also too conservative for some. These leaders of the UMC look down upon the many persons who are conservative and/or evangelical. The positions of the UMC regarding sexuality are an embarrassment to these leaders, especially when they are in meetings with their progressive friends. Given the nature of post-modern differentiation, the progressive culture demands conformity, and the UMC is not yet in full compliance with the progressive agenda. The failure of American leadership to drag the denomination into the progressive orbit is notable. The responsibility for their failure is due to organizing efforts of conservatives, evangelicals, as well as the growth of the denomination in Africa, Asia, and Eastern Europe. As a political conservative, I have been glad that at least a few provisions in the Book of Discipline reflected something from the conservative-traditional side of the spectrum, at least in its official documents. I knew the hierarchy devoted itself to the progressive cause, but at least its official statements it had moderate elements. They tried to find a middle way. The statements on human sexuality and abortion represent that middle way.

            Here is the difficulty the UMC faces. If it says the Bible is not the guide regarding the good life (holiness, sanctification), then it will not be long before it also starts setting aside the Bible regarding its witness to the revelation of truth. If I were to give an exposition of that truth, I would turn to John 1:1-18, Romans 1-11, Galatians 3-4, II Corinthians 5-6, and I Corinthians 15. I would also turn to the creeds of the church. For many Christian leaders today, the allure of following a different lord than the Lord Jesus Christ is strong. For many persons in the West, progressive political and economic ideology has become the god and the progressive elite in academia, media, and entertainment have become the community to which they want to belong.

            The UMC is on its way to adopt the full agenda of the LGBTQ caucus. I stress that we are to love our neighbors, regardless of lifestyle. In my view, this caucus promotes a culture of sexual confusion. In American and western European culture, due to the influence of the caucus, authorities are making decisions that affect female sports based upon the “T” part of the caucus. These decisions will make it increasingly difficult for women to compete successfully. Making gender a matter of personal decision is the ultimate in perspectivism in philosophy and the ultimate in the denial of biological fact. Beyond this specific caucus, I do have a concern that the logic will lead toward a demand to accept polyamorous relationships as well. 

            This leads me to say a word to the moderates and conservatives who choose to stay within the United Methodist Church. You will make peace with the idea that some United Methodist pastors and congregations will embrace teachings and behaviors that you cannot. If your Annual Conference forms a covenant with you that says it will respect your views and send you pastors to accepting congregations and send conservative congregations agreeable pastors, I wish you the best. I mean that sincerely. However, my concern is that with what I have seen from progressive bishops, the covenant cannot last long. You see, they view you as bigoted and unjust because of your position in upholding traditional Christian sexual ethics. If you are a conservative pastor, I predict your bishop will eventually compel you to endorse beliefs and behaviors you presently find objectionable. If your congregation is conservative, I predict your bishop will eventually force you to receive a pastor who does not respect your beliefs or values. I want to be wrong about this. 

            I have been part of the Confessing movement in Indiana. I have attended Wesleyan Covenant Association worship gatherings. The spirituality and fellowship I found in such gatherings have touched me. I have appreciated the love I have felt there for the United Methodist Church and for the desire to be faithful to the spirituality and theological stance of John Wesley. I appreciate the global sense of the faith, especially the growth of Methodism in Africa. It has reminded me that Christianity as Americans experience it is in the minority when we consider the two millennia of church history. 

            I am unclear what the Global Methodist Church will look like, but I trust those whom I know will be leaders to form the church well to fulfill its mission. I like the idea of term limits for Bishops. I first came across this in the Free Methodist Church and it feels right to me that bishops will have to live as pastors with their rulings. I get why the guaranteed appointment are set aside, given its potential for abuse. The smaller legislative overhead gives the new denomination flexibility to adjust to our rapidly changing environment.

            I do have a concern. 

            Legalism is not a good look for the Church that belongs to Jesus Christ. Jesus fought against it. Paul did as well. Faithfulness to what we understand to be classic Christianity is something we must maintain with humility. There are many schools of thought within the Christian tradition. Beyond that, we need to remember that the teaching itself points us to a mystery of the divine that is beyond our full comprehension. Further, the simple command to love God and our neighbor, the thought that love fulfills the law, the affirmation that faith, hope, and love abide, but the greatest of these is love, and the reminder that God is love, must always be before us. The effect of this is that no matter how weakly we do it, we welcome others and love them, regardless of how much we might differ from them in what we think or the values we hold. 

            I am thinking of specific colleagues and laity with whom I disagree. I continue to love them and hold them in esteem. I wish them the best. Obviously, I am not one who thinks that unity is something that we should seek at all costs. We live in a denominational age. It has its challenge at the point of respecting those who have differing theological traditions, systems of governance, and values. Christianity has lived with that challenge and thrived. If the United Methodist Church can divide in a respectful way, it will be a witness to the world that our oneness in Christ is far more important to us than any institutional brand we may possess.

            The biblical argument is clear. In the following brief discussion, I will be alluding to well-worn biblical material. I do so because opponents of the traditional plan have a polemical approach that seeks to lock those who hold traditional views on human sexuality into a wooden, literal approach to the Bible. One could make a compelling case that such an approach is impossible for anyone holding to orthodox positions, the doctrine of the Trinity being the supreme example. I will assume the reader has some familiarity with the biblical discussions. 

In the Old Testament, the prohibitions against sexual expression outside of marriage between a man and a woman are well known. The prophetic argument that the Lord and Israel have a marriage relationship based upon the relationship between bride and groom is an important one. The New Testament uses the image as well in the relationship between Christ and the Church. Mark 10:2-16 makes it clear that Jesus understood marriage between a man and a woman. Paul in Romans 1:24-27 makes it clear that human beings who do not have the Torah are still accountable for how they handle truth and goodness. As human beings turn away from truth, they also turn away from purity, engaging in acts degrading of the body and unnatural intercourse. Robert Mulholland has offered a good defense of the position that both Jesus and Paul knew of loving homosexual relationships. They rejected them as acceptable practice among the people of God. Their argument derived from a consideration of what God intended for human sexuality in Genesis 2. I might add the Song of Solomon as well. Now, if I heard a conversation within the Bible that some loving relationships outside that of committed and faithful male-female relationships were acceptable Christian behavior, then I would be more open to that conversation today. The only conversation within the biblical tradition in this matter is whether men can have more than one wife and can add concubines. The interpretation of the church has been on the side of a negative answer, limiting men to one wife. Now, the fact that we find no consideration of marriage relationships outside that of male and female suggests its difference with other practical matters that require thoughtful consideration. I mention just a few due to their influence on the discussion of human sexuality. These subjects have made their way into General Conference legislation to attack the traditional view of human sexuality. For example, some of the statements of Jesus suggest divorce is an absolute no, some suggest no except in case of adultery, and Paul (I Corinthians 7) even suggests other possibilities. Another example is women preachers. Paul has a conversation with himself about this, suggesting in I Corinthians 11 and 14 that women should be silent in church, but when they prophecy (!), they should respectfully wear a covering over their heads. Paul addresses females as heads of his house churches. Further, Luke makes it clear that the Holy Spirit fell upon sons and daughters to prophecy (Acts 2). All this opens the way for a conversation, when the time was right, for female clergy. For many evangelical movements, that time was in the 1800s, while many traditional denominations, including the UMC, took much longer. A third example is slavery, which both testaments assume as legal and a practice in which the people of God can engage. Yet, the humanitarian concerns in both testaments are clear. Further, the household rules of Paul make it clear that master and slave have the same Lord. The little letter of Philemon moves us in the direction of rejecting slavery. Famously, Paul can say that in Christ, we are neither slave nor free. When the time was right, thoughtful biblical and theological reflection led many faithful persons to oppose slavery. In these cases, the Bible has a conversation in process that we have a responsibility to continue, even when it means correcting the tradition. If I were to give a full account of the good life, I would go to the Ten Commandments, Matthew 5-7, Love of God and neighbor, the theological virtues (faith, hope, and love), the household rules in the New Testament, I Corinthians 13, and the list of virtues and vices (such as in Galatians 5-6) in the New Testament. We need a responsible and canonical approach to biblical material. Let us be clear. The good life is a matter of obedience because we are sinners. We struggle in different areas due to wrong desire. With sexuality, many people deal with the allure of another sexual partner. Many people struggle with a strong tendency toward deception and lying. Others struggle with coveting the possessions of others and giving in to envy. Many people wrestle with their pride and arrogance. Many people must fight against their slothful approach to life in general and to Christian discipleship. Many people succumb to the misuse of their speech, descending into empty and harmful chatter and gossip. Some people struggle with a tendency toward physical violence. Obedience is difficult for us all. It requires prayer and spiritual friendship to fight some of our deepest battles.

            I hope a reasonable person reading this would notice no hate. All persons are of sacred worth and dignity. The truth can be a hard truth to share with people you love and respect. I do have a love for truth and goodness, and I have fallen short in both. I am not sure the emerging Global Methodist Church would appreciate my approach to the Bible or the tradition that I expressed in the previous paragraph. I conclude abruptly in saying that I have some difficulty feeling like I belong anywhere in the differentiating, presently deconstructing UMC.