First Presidency and Council of Twelve Statement

The First Presidency and the Council of Twelve Apostles want to be clear that while there may be disagreements over some issues related to sexual orientation, Community of Christ members and leaders should act firmly against any forms of violence, harassment, bullying, blaming, slurs, or jokes that dehumanize or degrade any human beings. The 1992 World Conference passed a resolution on Human Diversity (WCR 1226) that states: “…we accept responsibility to resist fear and hate in all forms and to strive continuously to eliminate expressions of prejudice and discrimination.”

The growing fear, intolerance, and violence throughout the world alarm the Presidency and the Council of Twelve. Recently, young people of homosexual orientation have been harassed to the point of suicide. In some areas of the world homosexuals are beaten, jailed, or killed. Also, some churches recently have increased the volume and frequency of their condemnations of gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender (GLBT) people.

The church has not always provided clear assurance that our faith community and congregations should be safe places and sanctuaries of peace, where people need not fear embarrassment, harassment, or blame because of their sexual orientation. Our mission is to Proclaim Jesus Christ and Promote Communities of Joy, Hope, Love, and Peace. Therefore, it is vital that we engage in words and actions that “uphold the worth and giftedness of all people and that protect the most vulnerable” (Doctrine and Covenants 164:6a). We must work to ensure safe and peaceful congregations and communities for all of God’s children, including our GLBT members and friends and their families.

We may not agree on all questions related to human sexuality and sexual orientation. However, we are earnestly seeking more insight and understanding. We invite all members and friends of Community of Christ to join us on this journey.

At stake is whether I trust in God or the bomb. In nuclear war there are no winners. I therefore cannot agree that perfecting the bomb and developing the ability to use it first is a basis for my security and well being. It is certainly not an appropriate basis for my faith. … The fashioning of nuclear weapons and threatening to use them is a sin — a sin against God, against God’s likenesses (all humans), and against God’s creation. … Our security as a people of faith lies not in demonic weapons which threaten all life on earth. Our security is in a loving, caring God.

These prophetic words were delivered in a brave and remarkable sermon given by Charles D. Neff to the 1982 Community of Christ World Conference. Neff knew what he was talking about. He was in Hiroshima as a US Naval Officer just a few weeks after the city’s destruction by an atomic bomb. “What I saw there,” he told the conference attendees, “is indelibly etched into my  mind, my heart, my soul. The stark reality of death and despair everywhere in Hiroshima in 1945 was indescribable.”

Among the many contentious pieces of legislation that the Community of Christ faces at its upcoming 2010 World Conference is G-11, “Abolition of Nuclear Weapons” from the Central USA Mission Center. I believe this will be a key test of whether the church is moving toward becoming a peace church, something I have expressed doubts about on this blog.

The proposed legislation resolves “That Community of Christ calls for abolition of all nuclear weapons throughout Earth and space” and outlines a variety of ways the church can be involved in campaigning against nuclear weapons, particularly in the run-up to the upcoming Nuclear Non-Proliferation Conference in New York next month.

Whether you agree with banning nuclear weapons or not, one has to admit that a church that can’t take a stance against nuclear weapons can hardly call itself a peace church. Nuclear weapons fly in the face of Just War Doctrine, as they are the most indiscriminate and disproportionate weapon imaginable. There is no way they could possibly meet the Just War tradition’s requirement that military’s maintain ‘just conduct‘ in war. A church that cannot commit itself to a basic stance of Just War, nevermind pacifism and nonviolence, in my view, has no business pretending to be a peace church. Either drop the label of peace church or face the hard choices that implies — including giving up an attachment to nuclear weapons.

Throwing its lot in with the campaign to abolish nuclear weapons would speak loud and clear that the church truly has faith in the ‘peace of Jesus Christ’ rather than the bomb.

On May 22^nd, the First Presidency of the Community of Christ issued a letter to administrators about the authority of priesthood to conduct same-sex marriages.  Not intended for wide distribution, the letter restated the church’s current position against this practice. It requested, again, that leaders respect the current position while the church continues to struggle for a way to adequately address the issue.   This letter circulated among some members on the internet.

The letter was prompted by inquiries following Iowa Supreme Court’s decision.  Same-sex marriages have been legal in Iowa since April 29^th.  On May 17^th, Michael and Chuck Hewitt of Community of Christ’s Cornerstone Congregation (see KMBC 9 story) married in Roy A. Cheville Chapel at Graceland.  June 2^nd, Graceland’s President, John Sellers, issued a letter stating his administration did not know that a same-sex wedding was planned.  Given current church policy, it would not have authorized the service knowing a Community of Christ minister was officiating.  The letter invited responses.

In Chicago, where I worship and work for the church, reactions to this chain of events continue to unfold.  I still receive emails and phone calls.  Almost all are negative. The tone and timing of the First Presidency’s letter frustrated many.   Many feel they can no longer be patient regarding these issues.  The majority of the reactions have come from young adults.   In Chicago Mission Center, a majority of young adults are concentrated in the leadership and fellowship of two emerging congregations.  The First Presidency’s letter upset many of them because it affected their ministry.  These leaders spent hours on the phone, Facebook, and email assuring new friends and members of the circumstances of the letter and their hope for change.  Others simply circulated their disagreement and call for action.

Given the impact of these issues in Chicago, I want to try to make a small contribution.  In the last two weeks, it’s become clear to me again how the politics of church policy determine these issues.  These politics seem to define the future more than faith and human sexuality do themselves.

The church is caught in a knot.  The way definitions of sex and marriage polarize eclipses the call to faith in Christ and better understanding of sexuality in our global church.  If we were to actually take stewardship of these issues, I think many would recognize an initial response to question sexual policy at all.   It’s a rhetorical point at this point, but one we must consider.

It is not that sexuality must remain private.  By no means; the fact is sex is very political.  Enough questions about human sexuality have been raised in the last decades to transform our very understanding of human relationships, what it means to have prophetic faith, and the meaning of Christ’s ministry through the church.  Traditional views, in the U.S. and Canada, have come into question.   Eclipsing the purpose of the church, church energy instead is absorbed in managing change.

I mourn that a history of reactionary positions defines the church on sexuality instead of the other way around.  Arguably, the entire history of sexual policy in the church can be summarized like this.  What is true of American Christianity is true for the Community of Christ church in the U.S.  Conservative reactions to shore up traditional positions drive power struggle.  Liberals, who spiritually uphold the values of tolerance and acceptance, are increasingly driven to either leave the church out of conscience or oppose the absolutism of the conservative position.   None of this is new.  But, the intensification of these positions tightens the knot and drives the fear of division.  Little attention is given to the fact that these politics distort the very meaning of faith, marriage, and sexuality themselves.  They distort the meaning of prophetic ministry and cripple the mission of the church to proclaim Jesus Christ and community.

On sexuality, I believe our church remains largely in the dark.  Sex remains submerged in privacy, where Americans like it, except for the politics of ‘gay’ or ‘straight’ identity.  These categories actually pigeonhole people, erase others (such as bisexuals and transgendered), and prevent open discussion about how faith and sexuality interact in real life.  Without this discussion, discipleship is ignored.  Worse, ‘gay’ or ‘straight’ wholly define the marriage debate in the U.S.   This is precisely the trap church politics are trapped in.  From a justice perspective, it makes sense.  The question whether marriage is “between a man and a woman” or a civil right open to all is a matter of equality under law.  But, this argument suffocates any real discussion about why marriage is a sacrament in the church.  In reality, marriage in the church is a ménage à trios, a threesome.  The sacrament is a public action in which God is proclaimed and intimately involved.   The politics of ‘gay’ verses ‘straight’ must change if the church is to proclaim and testify how the Spirit of God consummates marriage today.

I see the real meaning of faith also getting lost.  Profound spiritual questions regarding our common faith and the power of personal testimonies get lost in the politics.  On the side of our common faith, what it means to be prophetic and proclaim Christ’s life and resurrection in light of our sexuality and public life is being pushed to the margins.  All of this gets contorted in oppositional politics on sex and marriage.   Such either/or politics leave little room for revelation.  On the personal side, way too few testimonies about how God transforms us in our search for peace and self-acceptance are being widely shared.  They are either edited for being ‘political’ or lost in the mix.  This is a travesty for a U.S. church longing for signs of life and evidence that God’s Spirit still speaks to us in the world today.  Such testimonies would enlighten our situation and provide direction.  They point the way to becoming a prophetic people, and could literally save the church.  When the debate on sexual policy is at its best, we hear these testimonies and face the real questions.

In praise of Steve Veazey’s April 5^th address, I credit the President/Prophet for addressing the use of scripture in the church.  Scriptural interpretation plays a direct role in the politics of sex and church policy.  President Veazey has called the church to higher accountability.  As his sermon states, Jesus Christ is God’s most decisive revelation.  We must use and interpret scripture in the light of his life, ministry, death, and resurrection.   I hold the wild belief that if we took this basic belief of Christian faith seriously, new revelation would happen.

I’ll close with a confession.  On the one hand, I confess I have faith regarding the church and sexuality.  I believe the future is possible, even waiting.  I see it in people’s lives.  I see God at work, even amidst the church’s sexual politics.

But, I also confess real despair.  When it comes to the politics of these issues, I do not ride a wave of hope.  Faith is often a forced decision for me.  I feel empty.

The church seems paralyzed by tension.   International, ethical, financial, spiritual – the conflicts are everywhere.   Our little denomination is bombarded with religious and ethical issues – sexuality, re-baptism, the politics of peace and war, and persistent theological questions about identity and mission.  I am thirty five and I understand why people leave.  My hopeful words can fall deaf on my own ears.  I confess my own cynicism.

I want to have integrity in my role and ministry.   I want to support our leaders and I want decision.   I personally disagree with the church’s current policy.   God has not redeemed the church from its sexual controversy.  Like Jacob, I see the church wrestling.  (Genesis 32:24-32)

Also sobering, I am full after lunch and so many will not eat today.

When I look at my LGBTQ sisters and brothers in the face, I feel ashamed.  I wonder if I should leave.  When I pray and look Jesus in the face, I ask if I should leave, but that road is not lit for me.  Sometimes I want to, but my ego, not my faith lead me there.

When I hear the anger of young adults around me, I share their anger and want to support them.  I ask God what to do, and feel called to respond personally.

When I hear the anxiety of pastors and priesthood I serve, I feel love for them, uncommon love.   I also search for the Spirit in our discussions.  I challenge them with the basic tenets of faith in Christ and press them to embrace the opportunity God is presenting them through the church.

When I spend time alone – feeling the tensions of my role, faith, what the church could be – I feel paralyzed, too.  In the feelings, sometimes my mind goes to the Gospels.  The circumstances of Jesus’ life come alive for me.   I see the controversy.  I look for myself in the drama.  I know I’m a Pharisee.   When I embrace this, a strange peace comes over me.   It’s not that my sin is excused.   Actually, the Pharisees show me that self-righteousness blinds me to the sin all around me…especially my own.

Then I read what Jesus is doing, in and away from church.  It’s amazing to me.  I begin to realize following is harder than leading.  Perhaps it’s our way out of this knot.

Over the last several years, mission and outreach have become major emphases within the Community of Christ. I must admit I often feel quite uncomfortable with this. Missionaries have a long history of collaboration with imperialism and have a record of insensitivity to cultures other than their own. I am not always convinced that we, who often have difficulty defining precisely what we are and believe, have something so much better to offer than other cultures and religions.

Indeed, stripped of all political correctness, the job of a missionary is to go tell people that they are wrong and that they must change the way they think and act. This holds incredible potential for arrogance – at its root is a belief that the missionary knows better than the potential convert how to live one’s life. Unsurprisingly, this does not jibe very well with the notion of a pluralistic society, in which diverse cultures and faiths are tolerated, celebrated and encouraged to thrive.

One way to think about this issue is to look at the different approaches to mission that were expressed in the work of Charles D. Neff, one of the Community of Christ’s most prominent missionaries from the early 1960s to 1980s. I believe his work in Japan, Korea, India, the Philippines, Nigeria, Liberia and Kenya has rich potential for teaching the Community of Christ how to interact with people of different faiths and cultures. His understandings of mission evolved over his career through at least five different models:

1. ‘One True Church’/Imperial Model: When Neff and other missionaries were sent by the World Conference in 1960 to plant the church in Japan and Korea, they went with a confidence that they represented the ‘One True Church.’ This sectarianism was a cornerstone of church doctrine at the time – all other churches, religions and cultures were considered either ‘in apostasy’ or outright heathens.

The missionaries believed they had a monopoly on the truth and that mission involved persuading people to abandonment totally their local culture and convert to the ‘culture’ of the church. However, as Neff and his staff began to interact with people and learn more about local cultures they started to feel uncomfortable with this model. They began to wonder how much of their ‘faith’ was actually simply American and Western culture.

Dale Bethel, who worked alongside Neff, said, “There was a kind of slow awakening that we were doing ineffective things. We had not been prepared to understand deeper political, cultural, and economic realities of the country where we were working. Simply talking about this great American prophet and an American church was not what people wanted to hear.”

Furthermore, through the ages, this model of imposing one religion on other people has unsurprisingly been closely linked to imperial projects. European missionaries and colonists colluded closely in the ‘Scramble for Africa’ at the end of the 19th Century. Similarly, initial Community of Christ contacts in East Asia came as a result of US military and commercial expansion after WWII.

Slowly, Neff began to appreciate how much they could learn from Japanese and Korean culture. There were concepts that were completely lacking from Western understandings of the world, which nonetheless seemed to resonate and speak truth. Moreover, certain things that were seen as so important to American members – their distinction from Mormons or other Christians, salvation, heaven, hell – did not always make sense to people of other cultures and faiths. To impose one’s faith and culture on people, and ask them to abandon their roots wholesale seemed arrogant and insensitive – particularly since much of the Community of Christ message was rooted more in modern Midwestern American culture than the faith of a first century Jewish teacher.

2. ‘Fulfillment’ Model: As he lost confidence in a sectarian approach to mission, Neff began to believe that the Community of Christ represented not a replacement of local culture and faith, but rather a ‘fulfillment’ of it. Having joined the church as a young man, he saw the Community of Christ as a fulfillment of his Baptist upbringing, not a replacement of it. As a result, just as many Christians think of their faith as a fulfillment of Judaism, Neff believe the message of the Community of Christ – particularly the worth of persons and the reality of a personal God – could fulfill and enrich other cultures and faiths.

“While recognizing that some aspects of the culture must be transformed, our general attitude should be that the Restoration gospel fulfills rather than displaces,” he said.

While this was more sensitive to the value in other people’s backgrounds, Neff eventually also became dissatisfied with this approach. There is something vaguely patronizing about assuming that one holds the key to fulfilling what are ultimately seen as inadequacy in other cultures.

3. Dialogue Model: Neff eventually began to see mission as a “two way street”, a dialogue between equals in which cultures and faiths learn from each other and enrich each others’ understandings of the world. He envisaged a day in which the Community of Christ would accept Confucius and Lao Tzu as other sources of scripture – a radical reinterpretation of the church’s doctrine of open canon.

“To assume that the gospel as understood in America can fulfill the Orient [sic] culture but that no reciprocation is possible because the Western cultures are already refined and sanctified or because the Saints of the Eastern churches are inferior Christians is arrogance of the first order,” he said.

Unsurprisingly, conservatives in the church found this very threatening. They felt, with some justification, that Neff was becoming a cultural relativist. They argued that if all cultures were equally valid then one opened the doors to ‘anything goes.’

4. Social Service Model: In the 1970s, Neff began to work in the developing world – the Philippines, Liberia, Nigeria and Kenya – and started to feel his understanding of mission had lacked an attention to the real material problems faced by the majority of the world. He believed Christianity meant little if it didn’t speak to issues of massive poverty, disease and suffering:

“When I think of the mission of the Church,” he reflected, “I recall the face of the poorest person and ask: Will it restore the dignity that every man should enjoy? Will it set him free? Will it heal his broken heart?”

As a result, he set up a series of humanitarian and community development organizations to provide aid and empowerment to the poor. The culmination of these efforts was Outreach International, a small international development NGO loosely affiliated with the Community of Christ.

While the earnestness of his social service efforts was widely respected, many members worried that Neff was moving away from religious mission toward secular humanitarianism. They felt a church could not simply become a social service provider; rather a church is an expression of faith.

5. Prophetic Witness Model: Toward the end of his life, Neff started to move away from the Social Service model for a different reason – he felt it inadequately dealt with the root political and social systems that caused poverty and conflict. Influenced by liberation theology, he became increasingly radicalized and felt the mission of a religious leader must be to denounce as heresy those human institutions that oppress, kill and steal.

He acknowledged that many would “not agree that it is appropriate for church leaders to be involved in the secular world,” but stressed that he felt “I not only have the right but the duty to speak out on the concrete issues of the day as they affect the well-being of God’s Creation.”

Within the church, he condemned the limitation of priesthood to men as exclusive, even calling for the abolishment of priesthood offices altogether. He publically criticized the construction of The Temple in Independence, arguing that the money would be better spent in helping the suffering.

His opprobrium was not limited to the church. He used a sermon to the World Conference in 1982 as an opportunity to forcefully condemn the nuclear arms race. He joined marchers in Washington protesting against US support of right-wing paramilitaries in Central America.

“I try to be a voice for the cause of human rights,” he said. “I believe God is a respecter of all persons, concerned for their well-being and that I should be also. If Christians don’t take the lead in advocating peace, liberty and justice, who will?”

He thus felt the church must be prepared to risk everything to be a prophetic witness of God’s justice in a world repressed by sinful structures. This meant the church could not avoid engaging in the political arena – it had to play the role of Nathan to the world’s King Davids.

“The call of Jesus to the cross was a call to love God and one’s neighbor in so direct a way that the authorities in power could only regard it as revolutionary and also subversive,” he said. “‘Taking up the cross,’ ‘losing one’s life,’ meant being willing to die at the hands of political authorities for the truth of the gospel, for that love of God which encompasses all humans.”

Obviously this approach angered many people, who felt Neff was using his position as a church leader to forward his political agenda. Ironically, the Prophetic Witness Model is similar to the One True Church Model in that it firmly believes in its own truth.

Which Model for Contemporary Community of Christ Mission?

Given the above five models, which is the most appropriate for the Community of Christ’s mission in a pluralistic world? Personally, I find the first two – the One True Church and Fulfillment models – to be imbued with an unacceptable cultural superiority and parochialism. The Dialogue model, while not a bad approach to pluralism is a little wishy-washy for my tastes. There is a great deal we can learn through cross-cultural dialogue – indeed in a globalized world I believe we are called to engage with ‘The Other.’ However, I believe religious institutions are also called to arbitrate and determine the difference between right and wrong.

Much of my own career has resembled the Social Service model. I work in the secular world, within the humanitarian and development sectors. The last thing I want to be called is a missionary. But nonetheless I think that the church is called to feed the hungry, clothe the naked and visit the imprisoned. However, I recognize that simply providing social services is not sufficient – it can even be paternalistic. To give the poor food without asking why they are hungry and who is to blame, is an exercise in irrelevance.

Therefore, I think the most powerful model of mission for the Community of Christ is that of Prophetic Witness. As a church we must emulate Jesus, standing with those who are suffering and speaking truth to power. We must work to transform those systems of oppression that prevent each person being valued as an image of God – no matter their culture, religion or background. We must be ready to risk the very life of our institution to be relevant to the world’s needs – to speak with authority and vision, calling for the fulfillment of the dream of the lion and lamb lying together with the child, where all can live in peace and unafraid.

-Matthew Bolton.

To read Matthew’s previous blog postings on the mission and direction of the church, click here to read his article ‘Managed Decline or Rejuvenation’, or click here to read “The Community of Christ is Not a Peace Church.” To read his biography of Charles D. Neff, Apostle of the Poor, click here.

I want to respond to Matthew’s article.

Perhaps we should own up to being father and son straightaway. In recent years our relationship has become more like equal friends and that has been a real joy for me. I even look up to him — he is 6ft 5in and I am only 6ft 2 1/2 in. He writes better than I do and intellectually he is ahead of me. I like to think though that the thousands of conversations we have had over the years have helped shape not only his intellectual skills of analysis but his interest and deep convictions about peace and justice… and his outspokenness. Emily, his beloved wife, is also having a good influence on him. We both look up to her (5ft 5in) and she may, in her Mennonite convictions and personal courage, be even more committed to peace than either of us.

Matthew was a double major at Graceland, his mother’s alma mater, and has completed his MSc in Development Studies and his PhD in Government at the London School of Economics, part of the University of London — my alma mater. He is not just a thorough researcher but a courageous one. He has researched his PhD case studies on the ground in Bosnia, Afghanistan and the Sudan and has worked in Iraq and in several countries in Africa and Central America and the Philippines. So we should welcome his voice along with other young adults in the church who are also on similar committed and courageous journeys.

I really like Matthew’s passion, commitment and clarity. When I finished reading what he had written I was moved and felt connected again with my passion, at my best, to make the world a better place.

However, I am what Matthew would consider to be currently “one of the top leaders” of the church as a member of the Council of Twelve Apostles. Furthermore as coordinator for peace and justice ministries for 9 years from 1998 to 2007 at the international headquarters of the church, in ‘sleepy mid-western town of Independence’, I am co-responsible with others for where we now are as a church. I am thus one of those Matthew is being critical about. I want to thus give my perspective too.

So to Matthew’s article.

1. This is where I agree with Matthew:

a) I really like the suggestions in the section headed: “What Would We See If the Community of Christ Was Serious about Peace?” We should aim to do these kinds of things.

b) I agree that we should choose “The alternative … [option], to take a leap of faith and truly commit to following the call the ‘share Christ’s peace’, engaging in efforts to bring about non-violent resolutions to the world’s conflicts.”

c) I agree that we should follow the radical Jesus. In Matthew’s words: “One cannot have it both ways — a serious commitment to peace comes with great risk. Jesus did not consult risk assessment specialists or his synagogue’s balance sheet before riding into Jerusalem, driving out the money-changers and facing the cross. The church must risk the possibility of ‘losing its life’ — both figuratively, institutionally and literally — if it wants to claim it can save the world.”

d) Agreed. It is difficult to become a peace church. We are frail humans, sinful, and hesitant to apply all of Jesus to all of our lives. We still are involved in empire, especially in the USA and other affluent nations, that crucifies the poor and the non-white.

2. This is where we differ at this point:

a) Matthew asserts that Community of Christ is not a peace church. I want to say that Community of Christ is on a very difficult journey to become a peace church. Commitment to the cause of Zion has been from the beginning of our movement but the pursuit of peace has only been embraced seriously and intentionally in the last 10-25 years. The turning point was the commitment in 1984 to the ordination of women and to build the Temple dedicated to the pursuit of peace, reconciliation and healing of the spirit. To say at this point that we do not measure up to the Quakers and Mennonites, who began 357 and 484 years ago respectively, is like saying a young seedling apple tree does not measure up against the mature fruit tree. Give the delicate plant of peace mission time to grow! This will take at least one generation. Whether we make the transition to an authentic peace church will depend on Matthew’s generation. My generation, born after World War II and shaped by Vietnam and the Cold War, will get through much of the wilderness but we are unlikely to see the promised land. Matthew’s generation can do it.

b) I disagree with the thesis that Community of Christ leaders can only manage the inevitable decline of the church. He compares the plight of church leaders to like that of British leaders who can only manage but not reverse the nation’s inevitable decline since World War II from superpower to an ordinary middle power European nation. The church is not like a nation. The church at its best is proclaiming and living the kingdom of God on earth as it is in heaven. The church, frail, sinful, is nevertheless an instrument in the hands of God to do good in the world because God so loves the world. The Holy Spirit will always inspire all those who hear the call of Jesus to love their neighbour and their enemy and who proclaim in word and deed good news to the poor. The disciples failed utterly at the crucifixion of Jesus but found grace, new conviction and new power on the mornings of Easter and Pentecost. We are no different than the first disciples in our weakness. It is Jesus who makes the difference now and then.

The new emphasis by church leaders on discipleship, spirituality, and identity as followers of Jesus, is a road that will bring renewal and a resurgence of hope and new purpose. D&C 163 is the most significant and radical call to change the world since the call to embrace the cause of Zion at beginning of our movement. The “We share …” document, on the church web page is very helpful to read as another part of clarifying our identity, mission and message.

The church is not managing decline, it is managing a difficult transformation and renewal, that is part of laying the solid foundations for being an authentic peace church. We go through all this change in faith. The church is the bride of Christ. Jesus loves her and will yet see her flourish for the redemptive purposes of God. In the last 10 years 11,000 people have been baptized in Haiti and Africa. The centre of gravity of our movement, like Christianity as a whole, is moving from the minority world of Europe and the USA, Canada and Australia to the majority world of Africa, Latin America and Asia. The church may be struggling in some parts of the world but it is flourishing in other parts.

c) Matthew asserts that most Community of Christ members don’t want to be a peace church. It is true, some don’t want to go on this journey, just as some grumbled all the way through the wilderness from Egypt and died before they got to the Promised land. However, I meet lots of people, young and old, both in rich and poor countries, who are enthusiastic about this journey to become a peace church. Jesus, the Prince of Peace, calls us on this journey. We have agency to choose the path we take.

However, if we really do become a peace church then what a witness that will be given our violent history, our struggles and lack of faith and conviction. If we can take this journey of repentance, individually and as a people with the help of God’s grace, then other faiths with violent histories will be able to see new options too.

d) Matthew is impatient with the very tentative, hesitant steps that he sees the church taking to tackle the immense issues of our time: AIDS, new wars, massive poverty, terrorism etc. Sometimes I am frustrated also. He cannot see any employees in the thick of courageous and skilled peace making. I would rather say that the work that is going on is largely hidden. We are a lay movement working at the grassroots. We are often ministers in our work more than we are in the congregation. What we do is mostly hidden from people, even in the same congregation, as church members seek faithfully to do good in the businesses they run and in the professions and jobs they do. We work at the grass roots as volunteers, as leaven, yeast, salt — hidden but catalyzing change. Most peace work is not spectacular but the honest commitment of years of faithful service.

Also we are usually not privileged to see what church employees are doing in very difficult circumstances in Africa, Latin America and in Asia. These are not easy places to work. Then there is the work of Outreach International and World Accord. Outreach’s PHDP methodology is about changing villages and neighborhoods through community organizing to change nonviolently the culture of silence and the systems that keep the poor trapped in unjust systems. Consider also all the church members who have received the Community of Christ Human Rights Award from Ed Guy to Rupa Kumar and John Menzies. It is an inspiring list and all have been volunteers or in other occupations. We have heroes.

To bring people right up-to-date. In September 21-22, 2009 a peace summit is being held at the Temple complex. President Veazey is inviting significant peacemakers in our movement, together with church leaders and those who lead Outreach, World Accord, Graceland University, the Seminary, etc. The agenda is how we can improve our working together to engage more seriously in the call of Jesus to pursue peace and justice making. We will have consultants from both the Quaker and Mennonite traditions to help us.

Conclusion

There is hope in the resurrected Christ. As Martin Luther King said, the universe bends towards justice. God’s grace is sufficient for us to take the difficult road to pursue peace. It is a journey God calls each of us to with great passion and urgency. The church’s best days are not in the past but still to come.

I am grateful for the journey you have chosen and committed yourself to, Matthew. We are on the same journey and much is expected of both of us.

—Andrew Bolton, Council of Twelve, Asia Field

As far as I can tell, the sum total of our contribution to peace on earth is an annual Peace Colloquy, a Peace Prize, a Peace and Justice website, the Children’s Peace Pavilion, a Peace Committee and a few million dollars contributed to Outreach International, World Accord, the World Hunger Fund and the Save Darfur Coalition.

This might seem like a lot to some, but it is actually no more than any other mainline denomination. It certainly does not match up to the work of the historic peace churches like the Mennonites, Brethren and Quakers. The word ‘peace’ in our logo does not make us a peace church.

How many major international peace negotiations have we supported or facilitated as an institution? Some may say this is setting the bar too high, but the Quakers (a similar sized denomination) were instrumental in providing a back channel in Northern Ireland. The Community of Sant Egido (a Catholic group) was one of the main players in ending the conflict in Mozambique.

How many church employees are working on the ground to end the world’s most deadly armed conflicts? Sure, there are a few members working with NGOs, the diplomatic services or the military, but none of these are working on behalf of the church.

Where is our fearless advocacy on behalf of the poor and oppressed of the world? We’ve given a little money to Bread for the World and have a couple interns working for the Friends Committee on National Legislation. But we have no established or effective way of mobilizing people for advocacy, unlike the Quakers, Mennonites, Presbyterians or Catholics.

Policy Is What Policy Does

We must pause here and dig a little deeper. In my first year of graduate school, a professor of mine, named David Keen, warned the class to be careful about prematurely judging a policy as a failure. He instructed us to ask what functions and unstated objectives might be disguised by a policy’s rhetoric. A policy might say it is intended to reduce poverty but instead just lines the pockets of corrupt bureaucrats. According to its stated objectives, the policy would seem a failure, but for the bureaucrats who got rich, it was a resounding success. In less academic language, policy isn’t just what is said, but what is done – ‘by their fruits you shall know them.’

Let us look, for example, at the Temple in Independence. It was “dedicated to the pursuit of peace.” However, it is not used to host peace negotiations. It is not a busy command center for managing peace activists, citizen diplomats or human rights observers. There are no ‘peace scholars-in-residence.’ There is no think-tank based there producing reports providing a faith-based perspective on conflict. Rather, much of the space, most of the time, is used for offices and conference rooms. To draw on Professor Keen’s instruction, I would have to say the Temple is “dedicated to the pursuit of church management and administration.”

Therefore, if I am to succumb to the temptation of cynicism, the current policy of the church is not to become a peace church, but rather:

1. To appease peace activists by trumpeting the discourse of peace and doing the bare minimum to keep them in the church,
2. To avoid doing anything that could appear too political,
3. To avoid taking any major risks, in terms of people, money or reputation, and thus
4. To have very little engagement with any major conflicts in the world.

If we take this as descriptive of the policy of the church as an institution, it appears to have largely succeeded in its mission.

What Would We See If the Community of Christ Was Serious about Peace?

If the church was really serious about peace, I would expect to see at least some of the following ‘fruits’:

1. A commitment to non-violence and non-participation in the military or armed factions.
2. Widespread participation in peace groups at the local congregational level.
3. Peace and Justice Offices at the United Nations and in Washington DC to keep informed about national and international peace issues, educate members and influence policy.
4. A substantial engagement with national peacebuilding efforts in conflicted countries where the church has a significant presence, such as Haiti, Sri Lanka, the Philippines and the Democratic Republic of the Congo.
5. Posting of WorldService Corps volunteers to conflict and post-conflict zones, where they would engage in peacebuilding activities, accompany vulnerable people, be human rights observers and support local peace activists. This could be done in partnership with other organizations like Mennonite Central Committee, the American Friends Service Committee, Christian Peacemaker Teams and Peace Brigades International.
6. A public offer to the UN and US State Department to use the Temple and Auditorium complex for hosting peace negotiations between warring factions.
7. The creation of a peace studies major at Graceland University (currently they only have a minor) and the provision of peace studies scholarships.
8. A program sponsoring prominent ‘Peace Scholars-in-Residence’ at the Temple who hold public seminars, write articles and speak to church leaders about ways to build peace in their jurisdictions.
9. Dedicated efforts to get involved with the ecumenical and inter-faith movement, at the local, national and international levels.
10. Particular attention to peacebuilding in the ‘Holy Land’ of the Middle East — an important calling for all members of the three Abrahamic religions.

What Prevents the Community of Christ from Becoming a Peace Church?

What prevents us from going down the path that our peace rhetoric suggests? I think there are three key underlying reasons:

Firstly, I am not convinced that the majority of the Community of Christ membership is particularly interested in becoming a peace church. There seems to be a great deal of inertia and resistance to moving in this direction. I am actually inclined to agree with the conservative voices in the church that the peace agenda of the Community of Christ is rooted more in the political and ideological convictions of the major leaders, rather than the tradition and beliefs of most members. Naturally, I would like to be proven wrong about this, but am not very hopeful.

Secondly, the institution seems to have a debilitating fear of getting involved in anything that appears too political. An example of this is how much focus is placed on children’s peacemaking (such as the Peace Pavilion and the Children’s Peacemakers Clubs). This is obviously not a bad thing in itself. But I fear we focus on this because we perceive children’s peacemaking as an apolitical thing that no one can really disagree with. Too much emphasis on children’s peacemaking infantilizes and depoliticizes peace, distracting attention from the fact that it is adults that are causing most major conflicts. If we are serious about peacemaking, we cannot shy away from the fact that peace is inherently political, because conflict is political (for more on this, click here to read another recent article of mine).

Finally, there is an entrenched institutional fear of taking major risks, whether financial or human. The church seems especially myopic about money. We are utterly paralyzed by our fear of losing tithing-payers. We are tied down by commitments to maintain two enormous buildings in Independence and are losing sight of our calling to be voices crying out in the wilderness. If the top church leaders are really concerned about peace why aren’t they travelling to Iraq, Afghanistan, Colombia, Sudan and Israel/Palestine and seeing what we can do to help? In the early 1960s when the church was expanding rapidly outside the US, President W. Wallace Smith embarked on a world tour, to learn more about overseas missions and highlight their importance. Why can’t our current leaders do something similar, but with visiting countries of conflict?

Final Thoughts

At present, the Community of Christ is not a peace church. It is a church that likes to talk about peace, dedicate things to peace, even ‘proclaim peace’, but do very little to bring it about. I believe the Community of Christ is at a crossroads and faces two options. The first, probably most comfortable one, is just to continue as we are, in a slow process of ‘managed decline’, never really committing to anything controversial and subsequently remaining rather dull and boring. We won’t attract many new people, but conversely there will be no risk of a mass exodus either. (To read more about my thoughts on the church’s ‘managed decline’, click here) If we decide to go down this path, it might be worth dropping the claim to be dedicated to the pursuit of peace — it would be the honest thing to do.

The alternative is to take a leap of faith and truly commit to following the call the ‘share Christ’s peace’, engaging in efforts to bring about non-violent resolutions to the world’s conflicts. Yes, there is a chance that we would look bad if a peace agreement negotiated in the Temple collapsed or was considered unjust. Yes, there is a chance that a WorldService Corps volunteer assigned to Israel/Palestine could get injured or killed. Yes, there is a chance that by funding peacebulding in Pakistan, money could end up in the hands of militants. Yes, these possibilities are scary. But they are the risks that must be taken if we want to be serious about making a significant difference in the world. 

One cannot have it both ways — a serious commitment to peace comes with great risk. Jesus did not consult risk assessment specialists or his synagogue’s balance sheet before riding into Jerusalem, driving out the money-changers and facing the cross. The church must risk the possibility of ‘losing its life’ — both figuratively, institutionally and literally — if it wants to claim it can save the world.

The church must realize that one cannot create world peace from a small, sleepy town in the Midwest. To have any real impact, the church must have a noticeable and active presence in the very places where major conflict occurs — Africa, the Middle East, the Caucasus, the Balkans.

—Matthew Bolton