| Generalizations
can often be wrong, but by definition, they are generally
correct. Generalizations are necessary in the science of
statistics. Most all professionals use statistics and
generalizations for decision-making, and if you don't believe this,
next time your medical doctor provides the possible dangers of some
medical procedure that you and the doctor are considering for
yourself or your loved one, notice that the doctor will discuss the
probabilities of success and failure. This type of analysis,
by its nature, includes generalizations.
With that premise, now let me make a generalization: Whenever a liberal in politics or in the United Methodist Church offers suggestions for a compromise, you can bet that it's not a compromise at all, but rather it is the least-liberal position for which this person is willing to settle. The liberal's stock-in-trade is to fool people into believing that he sees things pretty much just like you, that he's mainstream, that most everyone agrees with him, or to put it bluntly, that he's not a liberal! For every conservative who the liberals can label as "mean spirited," it's easy to point out a liberal who can be shown to be a liar. OK, maybe I'm exaggerating about using the term liar--after all, it all depends on what the meaning of the word "is" is. Case in point, read the below commentary posted on the United Methodist News Service website, which is an abbreviated re-print from the Michigan Christian Advocate newspaper. Those who control this newspaper are so interested (tongue in cheek) in spreading the Gospel, that instead of posting their newspaper content on their website, they rather tell you how to subscribe to the print edition, at two different websites, no less. Excerpts from this commentary are below in italics, with my own commentary interspersed, to demonstrate the natural liberal bias and the non-compromise aspect of the proposed "compromise." Commentary: Is there really more that unites us?She quotes Al Gore directly, and alludes to what Bush supposedly said. It's a nice sentiment. But we as Americans and as United Methodists need to be cautious. "Making nice" may feel better than contentiousness, but it may not always be faithful.Liberals see "making nice" as a virtue, whereas they lambaste conservatives as being "mean spirited." However, in this case, this liberal writer is making a direct reference to the moderates in the audience. Moderates are the ones who generally "make nice," whereas true liberals push their agenda at all times. Those who could be classified as moderates certainly outnumber both the liberals and conservatives in the UMC, and possibly the moderates even out number the combined total of liberals and conservatives. One of the most underhanded aspects of this commentary is that the entire premise of the writing is purported to be an effort to convince the reader that compromise is what we all need to work toward, and yet she's actually issuing a call to action to her moderate readers, saying that they should all be pushing her following "compromise" instead of ignoring the "elephant in the parlor." As we will see below, this "compromise" is actually a very liberal agenda, and thus, under the guise of compromise, this liberal journalist is actually trying to establish a larger liberal base to push the liberal agenda. The Rev. Erik Alsgaard, with the United Methodist Board of Church and Society, wrote a commentary shortly after Election Day in November entitled, "Voters' divisions mirror those of church."Click here for my commentary on the above article. He compared the lines of difference in the presidential election with similar lines in the United Methodist Church: gender, race, socioeconomic status and geography. I want to explore two others: political philosophy and theology.Feel free to look in your own dictionary and you'll see that the author picked out the definitions which suited her objective: To show the conservative in a negative light--key words that stick in the reader's mind are "resist and oppose changes;" whereas the liberal definition highlights a positive connotation of being forward thinking and tolerant (the liberals' mantra). Neither label nor position is inherently negative or evil. Our problems arise, I think, when we cling to the far edges of these ideologies or faith positions.Here it comes now--the "compromise." She says not to cling to the extremes, so what will she do below? She will back off about 10% or 20% from the extreme radical liberal agenda, and then call that a compromise! Whatever happened to a 50/50 comprise? Well, it's not in the liberal's playbook. Change for the sake of change is empty. Holding on to the past without critiquing the value of beliefs and institutions in a post-modern society limits our creative response to change. That's how conservatives get into the most trouble with liberals, I suspect. Liberals in the church, for example, get in trouble if they let their open-mindedness outrun their scriptural grounding.Here she sets the stage, saying that change is a given (thus you can now throw the conservative's point of view out the window--didn't she just point out that the definition of conservative included the desire to not change?). So much for a compromise. The faithful balance is to conserve those institutions that "work" and offer the hope of justice and peace in God's world. United Methodists must conserve our Wesleyan heritage of vital piety and social holiness. We also need to agree that revelation did not end with the closing of the canon. The Bible is the fundamental, but not only, witness we have to God's revelation. Liberals, more than conservatives, seem to embrace that ongoing revelation. And we all need to agree that any scriptural witness must always be filtered through the lens that is the life and ministry of Jesus.This statement, which is offered in a spirit of "compromise," is 100% liberal--absolutely no conservative elements in it at all. Oh, you might think that using Wesley's name should appeal to conservatives, but have you read what the liberals claim the name of John Wesley stands for? For example, they have said that Wesley would be in favor of same-sex marriage if he were alive today. All else above is obviously liberal nonsense. Unless we can embrace and live out the best of these two ideologies -- and avoid becoming mired in the reactionary positions of either side -- we will not be a united country or a united church.What TWO ideologies!!! She has presented only ONE ideology, and it's fully liberal! Do you see how this writer is manipulating the reader? Now the reader looks at this article as encompassing the entire dialogue--everything that this liberal author wants to see in the discussion of a compromise. Gosh darn, such a dialogue would be nothing but a discussion of various liberal viewpoints! Moving from the abstract to the concrete, here is a representative list of the issues we cannot "make nice" about in the United States:Translation: let's see a compromise which is predominantly liberalBitter, partisan divisions exist over legislation. These three subjects are fully liberal issues; conservatives generally see these statements as evidence of the liberals' misguided perceptions of reality.The gap between rich and poor continues to grow. Proposed liberal "compromise:" More money for failing schools and support of the teachers' unionCity schools continue to provide sub-standard education and experience a high dropout rate. Proposed liberal "compromise:" Limit gun ownership of law-abiding citizensGun violence continues at crisis levels. No, it's the liberals who disagree amongst themselves about the role of America as "peace broker and peacemaker," as the fully conservative point of view is that America should play neither of these roles in the world. Liberals see the American role in the world as the world policeman (AKA "peace officers," right?), whereas conservatives do not share this ideology. Thus, the above disagreement does not even include the conservative in the dialogue.We continue to disagree on whether the targets of our efforts should be individual or systemic. Nor can we continue to ignore divisions in the United Methodist Church, such as we see in:Proposed liberal "compromise:" Dialogue on which portions of the Bible are valid todayDivergent beliefs on the authority of scripture and how the biblical tradition should inform current faith and practice. Proposed liberal "compromise:" The Holy Spirit certainly provides new revelation that, in some cases, will contradict Scripture; now let's dialogue as to which new revelations are from the Holy Spirit.Differences in understanding how the Holy Spirit works in our lives and the life of the church. Proposed liberal "compromise:" No more judgmentalism; there is no absolute "right and wrong."The practice of continuing to label each other and then vilify the "other." Proposed liberal "compromise:" An agreement to continue the flow of money into the vastly-liberal-dominated UMC boards and agencies, while the dialogues are in progress ad infinitumThe willingness of some to opt out of the connectional system in fundamental ways (for example, by withholding apportionment payments). Proposed liberal "compromise:" Let's continue to dialogue and in the meantime, there shouldn't be any restrictions on current activities which are in conflict with Scripture and/or UMC DoctrineFailure to find ways to dialogue with each other on critical justice issues. Her closing impresses upon the reader that any person who will not agree to dialogue and reach a "compromise," using the above litany of issues, is simply being unreasonable. As you can see (if you have any idea what the conservative position is), the above has absolutely nothing to do with compromising, because the conservative positions are not even "on the table," and the typical proposed liberal "compromises" (which I pointed out) provide no consideration whatsoever for what the conservative holds dear as the essence of Christianity.Failure to recognize that the debate around homosexuality is also the "lightning rod" for a more fundamental struggle to determine the character of the United Methodist ChurchThe list of what unites us -- as a nation and as a church -- could be equally long. But what unites us will be diminished and superficial until we meet what divides us head on. So, what is conspicuously absent from the above discussion of compromise? Compare the above discussion of critical issues that need to be discussed in light of a "compromise" with the statements of faith on this Confessing Movement webpage. Now don't think that I'm saying, that while liberals demand a compromise (one which is truly a liberal proposal), that conservatives are more quick to compromise than liberals. No I'm not saying this at all. If you want to use the definition of the conservative in the above referenced article, then you would expect the conservatives "to resist or oppose any changes." Thus, according to this liberal writer's own chosen definitions, she shouldn't be surprised that the conservatives aren't eager to compromise. The distinction I'm drawing between the liberals and conservatives as to compromise is that the liberals try to manipulate and fool moderates (as well as conservatives if they're really good liars) into the comprise, whereas conservatives are more likely to be straightforward with their proposal, and not attempt to paint it as something it is not. This of course adds fuel to the liberals' demagoguery by painting the conservatives as not willing to compromise. In closing, I'm not saying that all liberals are
liars, or that all conservatives are truthful, rather,
I'm simply speaking in generalities! |
[Click] button If you
would like to add your 
to the UCM Article
