Trumpism in the Church, a Satirical Observation

 Peter Milloy has a marvelous sense of humor.  He put this in the newsletter of the church he serves.  He is a retired member of the Minnesota Annual Conference serving in the New England Annual Conference.  

Trumpism in the Church,  a Satirical Observation 

In order to boost growth, United Methodist officials have been promoting the ideal of  “strong pastoral leadership.” (This is code for “Do it my way.”)  They’ve recognized that many people respond well to forceful, confident pastors who project an attitude of certainty about their beliefs and have a definite vision for what they want their congregations to be and do.

     I think they’re right.  Driving back from voting in New Hampshire a few months ago, I resolved to be that kind of a leader.  Because I know that’s what all 500 of you want.  We’ll make South Hadley Methodist great again.

     Churches that have strong pastoral leaders grow better than others.  Ever since I started signing executive orders instead of consulting the church council and the trustees about everything, we’ve just been packin’ them in like sardines.  I’m sure you’ve noticed.  Anybody that says otherwise is lying.  

     We can’t just let anybody in, however.  We need extreme vetting of people who want to join our church.  In addition, I will build a big wall to prevent so many people from getting onto our property.  The Catholics will pay for it.  I know that all 800 of you support me in this.

     I also know that my plan to re-write the Bible will be a success.  A huge success.  We need a Bible that tells it like it is, am I right?  I’m gonna drain the swamp.  All those apostles and prophets left over from the Bible of the previous administration, well, they gotta go.  So the new Bible might sound different from what you’re used to.  But I have alternative facts.  If you disagree, you’re fired.  

     Remember that Jesus said, “Blessed are those who look like you, talk like you, and think like you.”  Or somebody told me he said that.  If he didn’t, he should have.  He was a fine savior, though, wasn’t he, folks?  I’m gonna find a place for him on my leadership team here.  We need somebody like him—all 2,000 of us.

    And in conclusion: I want all 5,000 of you to pray for those affected by the Bowling Green Massacre.   And pray that what happened in Sweden won’t happen here.  What happened in Sweden?  I can’t tell you.  It’s classified.  It was terrible, folks, but what happens in Sweden stays in Sweden.

by

Rev. Peter Milloy

Which Christian theocracy?

In yesterday's "The Pen," a liberal newsletter, the writer posed the question, which founding father said this? 

"The National Government will therefore regard it as its first and supreme task to restore to our people unity of mind and will. It will preserve and defend the foundations on which the strength of our  nation rests. It will take under its firm 

protection Christianity as the basis of our morality, and the family as the nucleus of our nation and our state."  

He then wrote, "No, it wasn't Thomas Jefferson, nor Alexander Hamilton, nor James Madison either. Benjamin Franklin, no way.  

"No, it was Adolf Hitler, the founding father of Nazi Germany, from his first radio speech to the German people, in his newly appointed position as Reich Chancellor, on January 31, 1933." 

The writer claimed that President Trump rarely ever read the Bible but he kept by his bedside and read nearly daily the speeches of Adolf Hitler. The writer pointed to the first Mrs. Trump who said that about him. 

For the fun of it, let's presume that the conservative religious leaders are right that America was meant to be a Christian nation. And we can ignore whether or not Hitler influences President Trump more than Jesus does. 

Which Christian faith should we build our nation upon? I've heard Mr. Trump likes Norman Vincent Peale and his "Power of Positive Thinking." Mr. Trump's personal chaplain tends to that kind of thinking. Anyone who knows of Karl Barth's theology would die laughing at the shallowness and selfishness of that theology and would never go along with using Peale as the focus of the new theocracy. 

My own denomination developed in parallel with and is organized very similarly to the U. S. government. I would be tempted to hope the theocracy built on John Wesley's viewpoint would be just right. But we United Methodists would have this problem.  Those of us from the more liberal schools of theology would put a theocracy together one way.  Those from a more conservative seminary would put it together another.  They would not be satisfied with ours nor we with theirs. 

And what of our Lutheran citizens or Roman Catholic? Their denominations are already the state religion of many European countries. They'd be ready to go right now as far as establishing their denominations as our national theocracy. 

Guess what, folks, there ain't none of us that would be happy with someone else's denomination being in charge of our nation and having the privilege of the last word theologically. 

Why do you think the forefathers wanted to avoid a national religion and chose a secular state in which all religions had equal freedom? They saw how the religious wars in England tore it up over the centuries and still roils under the surface between the Northern Irish and the English. The KKK in our country and some of the militias with similar theology have used violence against Catholics, Jews, and ethnics in our lifetime. These radical right religionists would never accept Jesus talking about how God will judge us on our treatment of strangers, the sick, the hungry (Matthew 25: 31-46) or doing unto others as we would have them do unto us (Matthew 7:12).  

"Our kingdom is not of this world," Jesus said (John 18:36). Too many people forget that.

I'm partial to allowing religious freedom and not requiring everyone to abide by my religion. That's America to me.

What should you do if you get a call from the bishop?

What should you do if you get a call from the bishop?

Know your rights as granted in the Book of Discipline.

---

Guidelines for responding

As a pastor in the United Methodist Church, you may find yourself facing a complaint by a lay or clergy person or a Cabinet member.  The superintendent or bishop may call you to a personal meeting at which you without prior warning may be confronted with accusations.  The usual strategy is to get you to admit you did wrong and get you to take a leave of absence or withdraw from conference membership, and that you have to make that decision within 24 hours.

YOU CANNOT TALK YOUR WAY OUT OF THIS!  SAY NOTHING  ABOUT WHAT YOU MAY THINK IS INVOLVED.  SAY NOTHING ABOUT IT NO MATTER HOW GUILTY YOU FEEL!

Here's how to respond:

1. Do NOT attend any meeting with the bishop or superintendent alone, if at all possible,

2. Do NOT try to charm or persuade them because everything you say will be used against you!

3. Do NOT admit to any behavior or feelings related to the complaint or any implied complaints they bring up.

4. Do NOT relinquish any of your Fair Process rights. 

5. Do NOT verbally agree to anything they suggest except a possible meeting time after you get an advocate

6. Do NOT sign any agreement of any kind other than acknowledging you have received a written copy of the complaint and supporting documents.

7. Do NOT think the complaints are frivolous because the DS and bishop obviously do not think so!

8. Do NOT think that going along with the bishop or DS will "make everything easier" or "get it over with." 

9. DO ask for a copy of the complaint so you may prepare a response.

10. DO ask for any support materials they have about the complaint.

11. DO ask for time to get an advocate (an experienced and respected Elder, preferably retired).

12. Do ask what the next step is as they understand it.

13. Do thank them for their time and get out of there gracefully and rapidly.

14. DO keep the faith.  God is at work here and you have not seen why or how just yet.

---

Complaints

For administrative complaints: "Unsatisfactory performance" (P 363) such as "incompetence, ineffectiveness, or inability to perform ministerial duties" (P 355 2b)

For judicial complaints: see Paragraph 2702.1* 

*When the 2016 Discipline is available, the numbers of these citations may change.

---

Fair Process Rights (as listed in the 2012 Book of Discipline*)

1. Presumption of innocence (P 2701)

2. The right to be heard before any final action is taken (P 362.2a)

3. Notification of "reasons for the proposed procedures with sufficient detail to allow the respondent to prepare a response and no less than 20 days prior to the hearing" (P 362.2b)

4. The right to have an advocate present with voice at any interview or hearing to which the respondent (pastor under complaint) is subject (P 362.2c)

5. The right to be present whenever any member of a hearing body is speaking with the one bringing the complaint (P 362.2d)

6. The right to all records relied upon, including oral statements by the decision makers in your case at least seven days before any hearing (P 362.2e)

7. The right to assurance that attention has been given to racial, ethnic, and gender diversity of the church is represented on all the groups dealing with your case (P 362.2)

8. The right to ask the bishop to "ensure fair process" (P 415.3)

*When the 2016 Discipline is available, the numbers of these citations may change.

---

Read the following from the Book Of Discipline of 2012*

Paragraph 362-364 - Administrative Fair Process

Paragraphs 343-345 - Appointment to Extension Ministries

Paragraph 416.5 - Transfer to another annual conference

Paragraphs 351-352, 354-356 - Leaves of absence

Paragraph 357 - Medical leave

Paragraph 358 - Retirement

Paragraph 359 - Honorable Location

Paragraphs 320, 355.1, 358.3, 363.1 and 415.3 - Role of Cabinet members

Paragraph 2701 - Judicial Fair Process

*When the 2016 Discipline is available, the numbers of these citations may change.

Traditional Christianity

I grew up in Waukesha, Wisconsin, population around 20,000.  I attended First Methodist Church from 1^st grade until I left to finish my bachelor’s degree in Madison at the university.  So from 1941 until 1957, my religious tradition was that of the Sunday School, choir, youth fellowship, and church services at First Methodist, visiting other churches with my friends on occasion (Catholic, Presbyterian,Episcopal, Baptist, Congregational, Reformed, and Lutheran).

Every church as well as mine seemed to have the same basic traditional teaching:  God is love, the Golden Rule, and the Two-fold Commandment.  All straight from the Bible, all beyond our ability to be perfect about, but all something we were to strive for.  And we knew that was possible because so many of the adults we knew were way better at them than we as kids were.

There were differences especially with the Catholics who had their own school and confession and unmarried priests but outside of that, you could hardly tell the difference among us.  

From first grade, we all were taught Jesus’ parables.  We all knew the parable of the Good Samaritan.  By the time I was of confirmation age, I was aware that the parable arose out of a typical argument among rabbis who were searching for the key to their own religion.  For Jews, it was “Which is the greatest law?”  For Jesus it was the Two-fold Commandment, “Love God and love your neighbor as yourself.”   

Like the one who questioned Jesus about it, I too wondered if I could love all of my neighbors.  That was pretty easy.  I knew the folks who lived on our street, and around the corners off both ends of its one block length.  I knew all the kids in my Sunday School class and most of their parents.  I knew the kids in my class at school and some of their parents too.  We had Jewish, Mexican, African American, and Italian classmates.  We got along.  

There were two kids I avoided.  One had a funny shaped head and talked a little funny.  He turned out to be a really sharp and friendly guy, I found out after thinking about him as a neighbor.  The other kid was a bully and I finally decided to walk home from school with him one day in sixth grade and met his mother.  He and I never became friends but I discovered he was human.

That is my religious tradition.  No one was really not my neighbor.  Some I just had to get around some mental obstacles in myself.  

Jesus had a way of changing the question.  His rabbi challenger asked “Who is my neighbor?” almost as if he could exclude some people like foreigners, people of other religions, particularly that mixed breed known as Samaritans.  Jesus turned it all around.  He told the story of the Good Samaritan.  And then he put in the zinger, “Who was neighbor to the man struck down by thieves?”  Jesus wanted all of us to be neighbors to anyone around us.  We were to be neighborly toward, to love as God does, everyone who is nearby.

That is my understanding of Christianity.  It goes back in my lifetime to 1941 when I first remember encountering the nature and purpose of being a Christian.

It seemed to me that all my friends and neighbors, Jewish, Mexican, whatever, were on the same page.  Growing up meant getting better at treating one another with respect and offering help in time of need.

That was and is and always will be my understanding of Christian tradition.  

So if someone demands I follow their tradition which excludes others and allows mistreating them, that really bothers me.  It is one thing to be trying to figure out what is the best way to treat murderers and other people who harm anyone.  It is another to make it lawful to set up a segment of people for discrimination, for exclusion from being treated with respect and being given help in time of need.  I don’t care if some part of the Bible is quoted to allow that discrimination.  What makes the Bible the Word of God for me is that part which Jesus said was the most important, Good Samaritan and all.  Everything else in the Bible must then be understood in light of that, as we have done with left-handed people, people who eat crustaceous seafood, slaves, those who blend cloth, and those who have divorced.  

That is traditional Christianity to me.  All this stuff that has been harped on since 1972 somehow does not fit my understanding of Christianity.  I have no trouble living and working with those who think that 1972 stuff is terribly important.  There are so many things going on that differences of opinion on what is Christian tradition usually doesn’t matter.  We’re being neighbors to one another on everything else that is really important.  

In Christian tradition, it is out of mutual respect that we exchange views on differences of opinion and try to find a better way to deal with them.  I’d tend to think in terms of “live and let live” unless somebody was suffering harm because of the behavior in question.  Where there is harm, we had better relieve it rather than perpetuate it or initiate it.

So, if someone thinks my tradition causes harm, tell me what that harm is.  And if I perceive a harm being done by someone with a different Christian tradition, I will do my best to point it out respectfully.  And if we can’t alleviate the harm being done, then maybe we have to go back to Jesus and ask once again, perhaps in more modern terms, “What is the best basis for Christian tradition?” 

ESPN on OJ

I have found that ESPN has done some interesting work in its ten hour five-part series on OJ Simpson.  It has done a good job detailing OJ's rise to fame and the development of the antagonism between the LA police and the Black community in Los Angeles.  And did you notice where Nicole came onto the screen dribbling a basketball. She was strong, athletic, and in physical control. Nothing meek and mild about her in that scene.

But the series is making the same mistake all the other specials have made, talking only with friends, police, and reporters who are in essence testifying with hindsight without being cross examined by an advocate for OJ. Of course that makes OJ look bad. He may have been bad but we are getting no relief from the drumbeat about spouse abuse from only Nicole's side, with OJ's being dismissed completely.

At least that is what I have seen in the first two installments. I will comment further if I have anything to add.

The People V. . . . What if he confessed?

My friends that believe OJ did it wonder if anything could change my mind.

"What if he confessed, admitted that he had done it?" they ask.

My answer is that he'd have to answer several questions because I couldn't believe him based on the evidence.  Where did he remove the bloody shoes, and clothes?    When did he change out of them?  Where did he hide them and the knife?  How did he get the coroner to write phony autopsies?  How did he hide the dog bites when Kato charged out after him?  How did he hide the bruises and abrasions from Ron's "hell of a fight?"  How did he get the bloody right hand glove onto the walkway behind Kaelin's guesthouse?  How did he get the Bronco back to the Rockingham gate without the limo driver seeing or hearing him drive up?

Give me time and I could come up with more questions.

There are things I take as facts: the police photographer's video from the morning after the murders that showed OJ's bedroom to be orderly, immaculate, and no socks on the floor; the autopsies as printed in the book KILLING TIME are duplicates of the coroner's actual reports; Ron and Nicole were not passive victims but would have fought back;  OJ did not have a mark on him from a fight to the death;   the detectives involved in the case presumed OJ was guilty and planted evidence to implicate him; and there wasn't time for OJ to do everything required if he were the killer.

 I have already explained some of these when I was critiquing the various episodes so let me focus on the video, the autopsies, and the timeline.

During the Esquire playing of segments of the original trial, a video taken of OJ's bedroom the first thing on the morning of the 13th was shown to the jury by the defense.  The video was taken by the police photographer when he first arrived at Rockingham.  The camera panned from the entrance to the bedroom all the way across the room to the headboard of the bed.  It showed the room to be completely in order as if the maid had just finished cleaning it, nothing on the floor, not even a ripple on the bedspread, no dark smudges, and no clothes hastily thrown about the room.  It showed that after showering, dressing, and packing for the Chicago trip, OJ took time to make sure the wrinkles on the bedspread had even been smoothed out and everything he might have rejected as unnecessary for the trip was put away.

The video shows that OJ was a neat freak, that he would have taken time to be sure the room was neat, and that there were no bloody socks lying in the middle of the floor.  (As pointed out earlier in this blog, the bloody socks appear in another police photo taken around 5 pm.)  If it can be shown that the video was taken at a different time such as days before or after the house had been cleaned after the police were done with their investigation, then I would reconsider my  opinion.

The autopsies to me are absolutely critical to my argument that OJ didn't do it.  Upon review, the two show three different knife blades, they show stabbing and not slashing as the way the killings occurred, and they show the two victims fought back, causing some real injury to whomever attacked them.  If it can be shown that those autopsies were not authentic and the real autopsies provide different information, then I would reconsider my opinion.

There was insufficient time between when OJ tried to call Paula Barbieri at 10:03 pm on his cell phone and 10:54 when the limo driver saw him go into the mansion.  He would have had to kill two energetic, physically trim younger people; fight off a dog; walk slowly to the front at Bundy and also to the back leaving the Bruno Magli bloody tread marks both ways; leave only trace amounts of blood in the Bronco; stop the Bronco to get out of the bloody clothes and change into the dark outfit the limo driver saw at 10:54: go behind the house to accidentally drop one of the murder gloves; hide the knife, clothes, and shoes someplace no one has found them to this day, and bleed profusely on the driveway at Rockingham.  From 10:54 to 11:15, OJ would have had to change out of the dark clothes he wore according to the limo driver's testimony, hang them up, take a shower, get into his travel clothes which included a white shirt, straighten up the bedroom, stop the bleeding of his finger, talk with Kaelin briefly about the bumps on the wall, help load the limo, and leave in the limo by 11:15.

Let's look at the things a little more closely.  It would take about five minutes each way to go from Bundy to Rockingham.  It takes about ten minutes to change from one set of clothes and shoes to another.  That leaves about 31 minutes to stab to death two active people fighting back; drop the bloody glove behind Kaelin's guest house; hide the bloody clothes, shoes and weapon(s) so that they have never been found.  And that is presuming a killing time of 10:15.  It also presumes that everything goes right like all the stop lights being green, no one interrupts him, the shoes laces not snaggling, and the cuffs not hanging up on hands or feet, etc.

If the killing time is 10:35, that means OJ would have had five minutes to get back to Rockingham and 14 minutes to do the rest, with the same potential for disruptions.  If he did not stop to change and hide the weapon et al, he would have had to do those at Rockingham between 10:54 and joining Kaelin in the kitchen at 11:05 to look for the flashlight before he could get the suitcase and clubs into the limo.  Even my friends who claim to take a two minute shower would not have been able to disrobe, shower, dress, clean up his bedroom, get rid of the bloody stuff, drop the glove out back, stop the finger's bleeding, etc. and leave by 11:15.

If it can be shown how OJ could have done all that in either time frame, and still get out to the limo immaculately dressed for the Chicago trip, then I would reconsider my opinion.

I do not think I set too high a bar here.  I can be proven wrong.  But please bring proof on those three points.  You too, OJ, if you want to confess.

The People V. . . . Episode Ten (II) Jury's Verdict

OJ didn't do it.

Episode Ten provided specifics for why the jury found reasonable doubt in the case against OJ.  The viewer had to be paying close attention when they were listed in the jury scene.   Four important items were noted: there were no bruises on OJ, there was no blood on the floor of the mansion, there was no blood leading to the glove behind Kato's guest house, and the gloves were not inside out.  Let us look at each.

One, in the video of the real trial, pictures of OJ's face, torso, arms. legs, and hands were shown to the jury at the beginning of the trial during the defense's opening statement and again in the closing statement.  It was clear that there were no bruises or other signs of his being in a life-or-death fight with Ron Goldman in the Bundy condo's small garden area.  Those pictures were not shown during the series on FX but OJ's condition was referred to in passing in the second episode.  I already indicated this as a major problem for the prosecution.  I noted Detective Lange's observation in the HLN series when he said Goldman put up "a hell of a fight."  The quick one liner in Episode Ten that OJ had no bruises indicates it was a real issue with the jury.  They saw no evidence that that fight was with OJ.

Two, there was no blood on the carpet in the mansion.  In the real trial, Johnny Cochran's closing argument reminded the jury that at Rockingham none of OJ's blood was found anywhere else but the kitchen, the front hall, and the driveway back to the Bronco.  That was explained by OJ's jamming his finger in the Bronco getting out his cell phone when he hurriedly grabbed for it when getting ready to leave for Chicago.  

The jury's observation was that there was no blood anywhere else in the house, not OJ's, not Nicole's, nor Ron's.  If OJ slipped into the house at 10:54 pm with bloody clothes on, how come there was not a drop on the carpet toward the stairs up to his bedroom, on the carpeting on the stairs, on the hand rail, on carpeting in the hallway, on the bed or on the carpeting in the bedroom?  The prosecution claimed there had been blood in the Bronco so why not where OJ went to change out of the bloody clothes and showered?  And, especially, why was there no blood on the carpeting beneath the one object in the bedroom that had blood on it, a pair of OJ's socks?  

The prosecution started out with the premise that OJ was finished killing by 10:15 (the wailing dog timeline) and had time to dispose of the bloody clothes and knife before returning to Rockingham.  However, Marcia Clark later claimed that OJ would have been recognized if he had stopped anywhere on the way home.  That allowed her to change the murder timeline to 10:35 when another witness said the dog howling began.  But that meant OJ would be in bloody shoes and clothes when he entered the house.  And there was no sign of blood anywhere else in the house.  That observation, as scripted, was very brief but it was loaded with the implication that OJ did not go upstairs after he bloodied his finger getting his cell phone and therefore the socks had to be planted.  Clark failed to prove OJ was ever in bloody clothes in his house and now was saying he could not have dumped them because he would have been recognized.  That provides reasonable doubt.

The third observation, there were no drops of blood near or on the way to the bloody glove that Fuhrman found.  The jury, as shown in the series, saw no drops of blood leading from the Bronco to the right of the garage and back to the pathway where the glove was found.  The drops were only to the left toward the front door.  Whose narrative was more likely true, OJ's about stubbing and bloodying his finger or Clark's that OJ dropped the glove on the way to bury it out in the back somewhere?

And fourth, the gloves were not inside out.  That was the hardest to comprehend given that the series writers did not show at trial how OJ took off the gloves that were too tight.  We saw it in the real trial video.  He was able to slip out of them only by pulling at the fingertips of the gloves one at a time.  According to Clark, the left glove fell off during the fight by Ron pulling it off his hand at the "V" near the palm.  But if the glove was as tight as that Aris glove was made to be, it would have rolled up OJ's hand like a latex glove and come off inside out, in a ball.  Both gloves were right side out.  There was no way they came off accidentally.

I mentioned in another post that pictures of the crime and evidence were in front of the jurors for months and they had time to notice such things.  That was shared by Armanda Cooley in the book MADAM FOREMAN.

Whether or not OJ faked the fitting of the gloves at trial so they just looked too small, they were made to fit tightly and that meant they would not come off accidentally right side out.  Defense said they were planted and that narrative made more sense than Clark's explanation.

While it wasn't mentioned specifically beyond the general phrase, "the prosecution failed to make its case," the blood evidence that the prosecution thought was a mountain was doubted by the jury.  The defense was able to show it had been tampered with and all three detectives and the main criminalist implicated themselves in testimony to have done inexplicable things that tainted the credibility of all of it.

Based on the above evidence, the jury had more than reasonable doubt.  I believe they proved OJ could not have been the killer and that the blood and fiber evidence had all been planted.  That made the decision very easy for the jury.  That's why the verdict and paper work took less than four hours.  

Because no further investigation occurred, the LAPD left the world with no answer to the question, "If not OJ, then who?"  By refusing to consider anyone else, they let everyone presume OJ was the only possible perpetrator.  

That left no closure for the families of Ron and Nicole.  And it let the real killers off.

I think the series shows that there was reasonable doubt.  I think that the jury made a legitimate decision based on what the evidence showed.  I think they made their decision separate from the emotional pressures of racism and spousal abuse fervor.  

Those who watched the series and chose not to pick up on the clues the writers left will not think the jury was fair.  The raised fist by the black male jurist for OJ to see was only a personal sign of support from him to OJ.  It could easily be read as proof of the race card paying off in a case that the jury was solely influenced by racism.  Even the clear evidence about Fuhrman could be discounted because of the technicalities around the use of the Fifth Amendment.

I have laid out my arguments that OJ was innocent of the murders.  I think the series writers felt obligated to include grounds for reasonable doubt while focusing on the great and dramatic issues of the times.  I appreciate their larger vision.  Even if they had tried harder to show his innocence, there are too many unwilling and unable to accept it and would discount it anyway.  

That OJ did not do it will probably have to be shown another time in another way.  I'd like to think this set of postings will be persuasive but I know better.  Maybe another trial and the conviction of the real killers might settle the matter but even that will not do it for many.  Sometimes the myth is stronger than the truth.

Thanks again to FX, their sponsors, and all who put this series together.  It was riveting drama and provided a lot of insights about the complexities of American life.