wfn.org | Commentary: Voters' divisions mirror those of church

[NewsDesk@UMCOM.UMC.ORG]

Nov. 9, 2000  News media contact: Tim Tanton·(615)742-5470·Nashville, Tenn.
10-21-71BP{507}

NOTE: A head-and-shoulders photograph of Erik Alsgaard is available with
this column.

A UMNS Commentary
By Erik J. Alsgaard*

The headlines in my Nov. 9 morning paper said "Nation Braces for a Long
Count" and "A Landslide Victory for Confusion." Certainly, the Nov. 7
presidential election turned out to be more confusing and frustrating - and
historic - than any since I was a small child. 

As the nation waited for a recount of the vote in Florida, we learned that
the initial margin between Gov. George Bush and Vice President Al Gore was
less than 2,000 votes. Trying to prepare my 14-year-old daughter for when
she votes in 2004, I told her, "At no place in your life can you now say,
'My vote doesn't count.'"

When I was in seminary, our United Methodist history professor drilled into
us that the United Methodist Church "was the most American" of all
denominations in our country. He recounted how the founding fathers of
American Methodism - Thomas Coke and Francis Asbury - quickly adopted
American political sentiment for their church polity. Thus was fueled the
wildfire of the Methodist movement across the land.

What is fascinating to me in observing this election is how the trends among
voters seem to mirror those in the United Methodist Church. Political
pundits and exit polls show that division exists in this "United" country:
men voted differently than women, whites voted differently than blacks, poor
voted differently than rich. Even by geography, this country divided along
classical lines for its 43rd president. One could not help but notice late
on election night the "blue" states for Gore on the West and upper East
coasts, and the "red" states for Bush in the heartland and the South.

The United Methodist Church's division, as seen most keenly at the 2000
General Conference, is simply a reflection of the national phenomenon seen
during the election. At General Conference, votes coming in from the West
and East coasts seemed more in line with a liberal theology, while those
from the central states and South seemed more in line with a conservative
theology. The news after General Conference, with the New England
Declaration and the Western Jurisdiction's "We Will Not Be Silent"
statement, only reinforces this argument. Of course, this analogy weakens
somewhat when one considers that nearly 15 percent of General Conference
delegates came from outside the United States, but I think the parallels are
still beyond mere coincidence.

One of the columnists in my paper pointed out the obvious: Whoever takes the
oath of office next January must realize that he has no mandate from the
people; winning 49 percent of the popular vote means the majority voted
against you. The columnist went on to plead for that "four-letter word" on
Capitol Hill: bipartisanship. It will be the first job of the next
president, the columnist wrote, to get people to work together.

How like the United Methodist Church! How divided are we? Issues like
homosexuality, reproductive rights and inclusion of all God's children in
the church are causing clear lines of division - not 50-50, but the division
is still there. Where -- or more correctly, to whom -- shall we go to find a
leader who will bring healing and oneness? 

The easy answer is Jesus. But even here, the interpretation of Jesus can
pose problems. Is it the Jesus who is more interested in the vertical
relationship with God, the "strive for God's kingdom" Jesus (Luke 12:31), or
the Jesus who scolds the Pharisees with, "You tithe mint and rue and herbs
of all kinds, and neglect justice and the love of God" (Luke 11:42)? For
some people, these are competing images, although I regard them as equal
aspects of the same person.

Reading a little further in my New Testament, I come across Jesus' words in
Luke 12:51. "Do you think that I have come to bring peace to the earth? No,
I tell you, but rather division." I used to read these words as a warning.
Today, for some strange reason, with the election raising so many concerns
and my church still reeling from a painfully divisive General Conference, I
read them as words of comfort. Jesus said that this would happen, and with
it he brings a measure of peace. I don't know how. I don't know why. It just
is.

# # #

*Alsgaard is assistant general secretary of communication for the United
Methodist Board of Church and Society, based in Washington.

Commentaries provided by United Methodist News Service do not necessarily
represent the opinions or policies of UMNS or the United Methodist Church.

*************************************
United Methodist News Service
Photos and stories also available at:
http://umns.umc.org