6 FAITH forum B


Occupy movement doesn’t merit Methodists’ support


BY MARK P. SMITH Special Contributor


Whether it’s Occupiers, Tea


Partiers or pro-lifers, I admire people willing to take a stand. Indeed, apathy may be an even bigger problem in the contemporary church than misguided activism. (At least the activists are paying attention.) So, to a certain ex- tent, I sympathize with Occupy Wall Street (OWS). However, while


they may have tapped into the widespread frustra- tion so many feel about economic in- equities, OWS pro- testers are a stark departure from the average American. While claiming to represent strug- gling working folks (the “99 percent”), recent surveys indicate that a large number of Occupiers are actually young adults from very affluent neigh- borhoods. Occupy protesters’ values are also


Mark Smith


not representative of the general pop- ulation, according to statistics com- piled by Douglas Schoen, who was a pollster for President Bill Clinton. Mr. Schoen wrote in the Wall Street Jour- nal:


“The protesters have a distinct ide-


ology and are bound by a deep com- mitment to radical left-wing policies. . . . Our research shows clearly that the movement doesn’t represent unem- ployed America and is not ideologi- cally diverse. Rather, it comprises an unrepresentative segment of the elec- torate that believes in radical redistri- bution of wealth, civil disobedience and, in some instances, violence. Half (52 percent) have participated in a po- litical movement before, virtually all (98 percent) say they would support civil disobedience to achieve their goals, and nearly one-third (31 per- cent) would support violence to ad- vance their agenda.”


Not offering solutions Thus far Occupiers have done a


much better job of cursing the dark- ness than illuminating it. What does “economic justice” look like and how do we achieve it? We don’t know. They’ve yet to provide a reasonable answer. What we have heard is vague rhetoric aimed more at tearing down the rich than building up the poor. De- manding higher taxes for the “top 1 percent” and more regulatory author- ity for government, Occupiers hope that adding more regulations to ones


already not being enforced is going to help solve the problem. The effect of OWS proposals would


not be more equitable wealth sharing as much as it would be a transfer of money and power from private inter- ests to governmental interests. Just as one might affirm that their faith in government is naively misplaced (since governmental mismanagement is a major cause of their grievances), one might argue even more strongly that the Occupiers’ remedy is based on a misdiagnosis. Wall Street profiteering complicit


in the financial crisis was actually a secondary effect of at least three basic failures NOT of free enterprise but of government: 1) loose federal mone- tary policy; 2) poor enforcement of regulations already in place; 3) dubi- ous public-private partnerships re- sulting in unwise federal underwriting of mortgages. Perhaps because some United


Methodist leaders are vocal support- ers, most UM coverage of Occupy has been positive. This is surprising be- cause, in addition to the previous sta- tistics, the Occupy movement has resulted in thousands of arrests for criminal activity, including vandal-


ity even if he agreed with the cause, such an expectation would be in vain. Apparently unbothered by any notion of a double standard, Mr. Winkler compared the activities of the Occu- piers to the righteous indignation of Christ: “Like Jesus, they are occupying the temple of the moneychangers.”


Mission is demeaned I think Mr. Winkler’s analogy indi-


cates a troubling bias or misunder- standing, perhaps motivated by an ideological devotion so natural that Mr. Winkler himself may not even be aware of it. In its 12/12/11 issue the Church and Society newsletter yet again contained an article extolling the virtues of Occupy. When church leaders reduce faith


to a digest of secular platitudes and political initiatives—especially when they do it in an ideologically-biased fashion—unnecessary divisiveness occurs and the church’s mission is not just impeded but demeaned. When church officials volunteer opinions on matters in which they have little ex- pertise—health care, economics, etc.—it’s concerning. When they act as de facto cheerleaders for one side of the political spectrum, then their ac-


‘When church leaders . . . act as de facto cheerleaders for one side of the political spectrum, then their actions become cancerous.’


ism, rape, lewd and uncivil behavior, anti-Semitism, even homicide. The agency that ostensibly repre-


sents United Methodism politically is the General Board of Church and So- ciety, led by Jim Winkler. According to a report in his agency’s newsletter, Faith In Action, Mr. Winkler “. . . has been deeply disturbed by the lack of basic decency and common courtesy among people who have disagree- ments about public policy.” However, his comments were NOT


about the Occupiers but about Tea Party protesters rallying against Presi- dent Obama’s health care plan. Mr. Winkler volunteered his sentiments despite the fact that law-breaking and violence have been virtually nonexist- ent among Tea Party protesters. Next to the Occupiers, most Tea Partiers look like Mahatma Gandhi. Considering his criticism of the


Tea Party, Mr. Winkler’s take on Oc- cupy is intriguing. While one might expect him to condemn the criminal-


JANUARY 6, 2012 | UNITED MET HODI S T REPORTER


tions become cancerous. Though the reasons are not fully


understood, it’s clear that the United Methodist Church has been losing U.S. members for decades. The lowest UM membership is largely in areas where churches have developed an affinity for liberal political ac- tivism. Many of the clergy participat- ing in the Occupy movement come from these regions. Perhaps it’s time for United


Methodism to connect the dots and seriously rethink its involvement in the political arena. In recent years, UM activists have misinterpreted and overplayed John Wesley’s call for so- cial action. If John Wesley was about anything, he was about converting in- dividuals to Christ. Anything else was a very distant second. Has the denom- ination that traces its roots to Wesley forgotten this?


Dr. Smith is an optometrist and longtime United Methodist. He lives in Pine Mountain, Ga.


UM pastor’s prayers turn urgent, personal


BY JAMES C. HOWELL Special Contributor


Prayer for healing has never been


my strong suit. Of course I pray all the time—in hospitals, over the phone and privately in response to the end- less requests for intercession—but I’m never entirely at ease. I’m bugged that over 90 percent of


the prayer requests we receive are health-related when we live in the healthiest place and time humanity has ever known. Why don’t my people want to pray more for holiness, or for the betterment of God’s mission on earth? I also have felt a call to moderate


between people’s prayers for healing and medical realities. Some clergy seem cocksure God will heal, but the number of allegedly miraculous heal- ings I’ve witnessed could be counted on one hand with a leftover finger or two. My vocation, I’ve believed, has been to stand in the breach and help people understand God still exists, or God isn’t punishing, when prayers aren’t answered, when the cancer still advances, when the heart sur- gery fails. Truth be told, be-


yond my professional praying (and I really do honor every re- quest for prayer, even if only once, or quickly), I find I do not ask God for much, or at least not for specific favors. So how dizzyingly


IMAGE COURTESY WIKIMEDIA COMMONS


miracle, but I was the one who resis- ted—I spend my days with people who pray earnestly for someone with a year to live, but the beloved dies in just four months. Faced with what might be proclaimed a miracle, I was the one to demur. I mention all this here to raise the


uncomfortable was it to find myself in the ICU waiting room when my daugh- ter’s boyfriend, whom I adore, was lin- gering near death? I reminded God I don’t ask for much—and then, like all the people to whom I’ve offered pastoral care, I pleaded with God for the miracle I of all people knew was ex- ceedingly unlikely. The family seemed to feel they had an edge in our praying, with me on their side, but as I laid my hands on the young man’s head, I apologized to the family, explaining I felt desperate and really had no clue how to heal. And then he beat the odds and


James Howell


began to recover. Onlookers called it a


‘I wonder why seminaries teach so little about prayer . . . when people obsess over it above all other things ecclesiastical or spiritual.’


question about clergy and prayer. What are we really doing, we profes- sional prayers? And what are the link- ages, or disconnects, between our pastoral office of intercession and what we do in the thick of our own personal stuff? I wonder why


seminaries teach so little about prayer and theologians speak so rarely about it, when people ob- sess over it above all other things ecclesi- astical or spiritual. During our personal crisis, I announced I


was going to lead a little workshop on prayer. More than 500 people showed up, and more than 500 others have watched on YouTube. The kindred email series has elicited enthusiastic response. I’m more unsettled, and yet, as a


result of all this, more settled about prayer than I’ve ever been. But I won- der what others think and feel. Do we grasp how crucial the way we pray, and what we say about prayer, is for all our work?


Dr. Howell is senior pastor of Myers Park UMC in Charlotte, N.C., and author of the new book The Beauty of the Word: The Challenge and Wonder of Preaching (Westminster John Knox Press). This essay earlier appeared on Duke Divinity School’s Faith & Leadership website: faithandleadership.com.


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16