by Bob Phillips

Recently the Board of Church and Society of the United Methodist Church issued the following specific demands/calls regarding the moral tragedy of the current war in Gaza:

“Church and Society has joined with United Methodist and ecumenical partners in calling on the U.S. government to:
• Support an immediate ceasefire, de-escalation, and restraint by all involved.
• Ensure immediate and adequate access to and provision of humanitarian needs.
• Press all parties to abide by the Geneva Conventions and customary international law.
• Demilitarize the conflict by withholding further arms shipments.
• Negotiate the immediate release of all civilians being held hostage and ensure international protection for all civilians, including Palestinian civilians in Gaza and the West Bank.”

First, the good news. The Wesleyan theological tradition takes a Christ-centered witness to social justice seriously and refuses to mute the command to “love your neighbor as yourself” to purely personal and narcissistic ideas.

Many denominations and stand-alone churches have no social witness to Gospel justice beyond volunteering for soup kitchens or ringing bells for the Salvation Army, both honorable and Christ-serving actions. A voice mobilized by a denomination to witness for justice and against injustice moves that witness to a new level. John Wesley was the first major religious figure in England to call for the end of slavery in general and British involvement in the slave trade in particular. His spiritual children have “a charge to keep” that includes commitment to biblically based witness and action for justice. Methodist leadership in public and political advocacy leading to the end of child labor and providing disability pensions for those injured at work are positive examples.

Second, the bad news. Wesleyans have not lived up to this non-negotiable command of Christ consistently. Leading Methodist clergy were among those whose public letter scolded the Reverend Martin Luther King for his witness against racist segregation in Birmingham, Alabama, which prompted King’s moral classic, “Letter from Birmingham Jail,” as response. Daniel Drew, one of the 19th century robber barons of Wall Street, endowed the United Methodist seminary named for him. Washington Duke, Confederate veteran and a founder of the American Tobacco Company, whose products (unintentionally) killed millions, has a United Methodist historically related university and divinity school named for him. Duke also insisted the college admit women in an era when a woman’s place was not in college, a caution against judging historical figures by modern simplistic ‘superior’ standards, the vice of “presentism.”

Third, the annoying news. Churches sensitive to the social justice vision of the Gospel can be sucked into an uncritical and lopsided view of which issues are worth attention. When the public statements of a denomination/church seem to parrot the secular views of the left wing of the Democratic Party or the right wing of the Republican Party, Christ has been marginalized by the deeper passion for this or that cause. The cause itself may be nice, noble, and needed, but gaming away the clear centrality of Christ trades away what matters most.

This is where the statement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict falls short. Many are calling for a cease-fire to the carnage. Thousands of non-combatants have suffered loss of life, home, and health. The Hamas tactic of using Palestinians as human shields and the Israeli blunt force trauma used to seek out their genocidal foe cry out for resolution.

The GBCS statement reflects misfired good intentions, backed by a more recent Council of Bishops statement calling for a permanent cease fire. These pronouncements make some sense if one takes them like some church leadership takes the Bible, seriously but not literally. Point 1 offers a generalized call to cease and desist with no suggestion of how do to so, especially if Hamas continues to hold hostages whose names they refuse to release. Meeting basic human needs is a right call (Point 2) but how does the call to affirm the Geneva accords (Point 3) specifically apply to Hamas, considering the unrepentant rape and slaughter of October 7? This demand targets the US government to make the combatants comply without adding insight on how.

Withholding arms (Point 4) disarms Israel only. Given that the recent Bishop statement included a single sentence factual reference to October 7, balanced by several paragraphs denouncing Gaza suffering, one wonders about holy and informed nuance that lends credibility to pronouncements. The regional saying has merit: If Hamas lays down its weapons, there will be no more war; If Israel lays down its weapons, there will be no more Israel.

Point 5 calls for negotiation to release all “civilians” held hostage (kidnapped soldiers, a category different from prisoner of war, are out of luck). Who precisely does Church and Society and the Council of Bishops suggest to lead negotiations, given that their one-sided denunciation of Israel eliminates them as honest brokers? Neither the Bishops statement nor the Church and Society statement mention the Hamas strategy of using Palestinian civilians as human shields; only Israel is denounced, suggesting the Hamas strategy of mass casualties of their own women and children is working. The statement rightly is specific regarding hurting Palestinians and Gaza civilians but makes no specific mention of the intentional kidnapping and abuse of 250 Israelis (plus the bodies of some murdered Israelis) on October 7.

The fact I have a personal relationship with the One who made the stars does not qualify me to teach astronomy at Princeton. The sad tendency of some religious leaders and boards to make one-sided and/or irrational statements of what others “ought” to do is simply leading with their chin; be not surprised when they are punched out of the ring and taken neither literally nor seriously by informed adults.

Fourth, the hopeful news. Much can be done. The US churches can actively provide food and related resources to those who are suffering in Gaza, making a sacrificial public commitment from its budget in addition to press conferences and press releases. The church can name what specifically it has done for Israel, other than condolences, in the aftermath of the mini-Holocaust of October 7, as a step toward earning the right to speak. The church can call out immoral acts by all sides, with consistency, whether Hamas using civilians for callous body counts or Israel failing to demonstrate specific actions that feed and care for bona fide non-combatants. This can include what policies and initiatives Israel is taking to confound Hamas by lessening civilian casualties, as well as challenge when relief workers in Gaza die in air strikes.

The church can call its congregations to be intentional and consistent in prayer for the coming of a just peace. Church and Society in particular, can publicly renounce its repeated tired and one-sided “Boycott-Divest-Sanction” campaign against Israel, which has poisoned the well of credibility with Israel, while calling for no such actions against Hamas. (Former Secretary of State and life-long United Methodist Hillary Clinton has been clear the BDS movement is a bad idea.) Leaders and Boards can engage senior political, military and State Department leaders (especially those who are Methodist) asking for insight and suggestions on how to understand and respond most effectively amid this horrendous moral tragedy. Ask informed laity who have a large and deep background, for this also is a ‘ministry of the laity’ role. Invite laity who literally are on the front lines of this conflict to help the church think and act theologically and wisely.

While the Global Methodist Church has not stood up aspects of its formal organization, lessons learned can guide its justice ministry. Whether or not an official board is established to deal with justice issues, now is the time to name the need and to be sure that predictable silence will not be the response to morally horrendous acts or issues that transcend any local congregation but can engulf whole peoples with pain. Any denomination that offers routine and predictable public responses, backed by no measurable action, is simply scratching its own back. Any denomination so structured as to make coordinated forceful words and deeds impossible as a unified response to profound moral crises forfeits the blessing of the God of the Hebrew prophets and moral credibility in the eyes of the secular world.

The answer is not silence, nor one-sided political spin of left or right, nor issuing statements with all the practical impact of calling for time travel. Bathed in prayer and engaging in facts both cozy and painful, let the church mobilize a witness more than words. Before speaking, ask honestly whose needs are being met in the statement. Then, only then, speak in the name of Christ. Speak, and act.

Photo Credit

Bob Phillips

Degrees from University of Illinois, Asbury and Princeton Seminaries, University of St. Andrews

Graduate of Senior Executive Seminar on Morality, Ethics and Public Policy, Brookings Institution

Captain, Chaplain Corps, US Navy (ret)

See Bob’s work on Methodist Mitosis in Methodist Review.