Video
Twitter
Facebook
RSS Feed
Uncivil for church leader to remove his name from civility statement?
By David Waters
A leader of one of America's largest Christian denominations wants his name removed from a statement calling for a more civil national discourse. Why? Too many of the wrong sort of Christians have signed the statement.
"The problem is the tent that has grown so large on the signatures of this that are including people who are supportive of gay marriage and abortion rights," explained a spokesman for George O. Wood, general superintendent of the Assemblies of God, the nation's second largest Pentecostal groups
Is it an act of incivility to have your name removed from a "Covenant for Civility"?
The "Covenant for Civility" has been signed by more than 100 Christian (assuming we can use that term to describe them all) leaders -- from NAE president Leith Anderson and Prison Fellowship founder Chuck Colson to United Church of Christ President and General Minister Geoffrey A. Black and Sojourners founder Jim Wallis.
Wood signed the statement last month during a National Association of Evangelicals board meeting he was hosting in Missouri. Wood is on the NAE's executive committee. AOG spokeswoman Juleen Turnage told RNS that Wood agreed with the focus on civility, but thought wording such as "unity we have in the body of Christ" was referring strictly to evangelical Christians.
"He says that he cannot be a part of signing a document that includes people who are taking a viewpoint in their own issues that are clearly contradictory to the moral teachings of Scripture," she said.
But the covenant isn't a statement of faith. It's not a statement in support of any particular social or political position or issue. Even a stickler like George O. Wood would be hard-pressed to find any line in this particular statement that contradicts the moral teachings of Scripture.
In fact, nine of the statement's 10 paragraphs cite and quote Scripture. For example:
"We come together to urge those who claim the name of Christ to 'put away from you all bitterness and wrath and anger and wrangling and slander, together with all malice, and be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, as God in Christ has forgiven you' (Ephesians 4:31-32)."
"We commit that our dialogue with each other will reflect the spirit of the Scriptures, where our posture toward each other is to be "quick to listen, slow to speak and slow to become angry" (James 1:19)."
"We will ever be mindful of the language we use in expressing our disagreements, being neither arrogant nor boastful in our beliefs: "Before destruction one's heart is haughty, but humility goes before honor" (Proverbs 18:12)."
It's the sort of statement you might get members of your Sunday School class -- or your child's Sunday School class -- to read, discuss and sign.
It's the sort of statement that makes you think - as the covenant declares --"The church in the United States can offer a message of hope and reconciliation to a nation that is deeply divided by political and cultural differences."
Unfortunately - as the covenant also declares - "Too often, however, we have reflected the political divisions of our culture rather than the unity we have in the body of Christ."
But is the church merely a reflection of the political divisions in our culture? Or is disunity in the Body of Christ a primary source of those divisions, not to mention our uncivil political discourse?
How good and pleasant it is when the people of God live together in unity.--Psalm 133:1. That's the opening line in the "Covenent of Civility."
What if we just made that the statement?
David Waters
| April 14, 2010; 2:14 PM ET | Category: Today's Topic Save & Share:
Previous: Chinese dissident gets religious liberty award | Next: Dr. Benjamin Hooks: 'A Christian first'
Posted by: mitchc2 | April 14, 2010 11:40 PM
Report Offensive Comment
"How good and pleasant it is when the people of God live together in unity"
People of God have the same mind. They don't contradict what God says. Supporters of gay marriage and abortion are not people of God.
I commend George O. Wood.
Posted by: spidermean2 | April 15, 2010 9:31 AM
Report Offensive Comment
George O. Wood has the right to believe that certain persons "who claim Christ" are not in fact Christians. I am strongly inclined to disagree with his assessment, particularly since he apparently limits the "tent" of Christianity only to evangelicals and because I think in so doing we usurp God's role as the sole authoritative judge. Beyond that, however, I believe he has utterly missed the point of the statement, namely, that Christians are called by the Gospel of Christ to treat each other and persons of different faiths OR OF NO FAITH with civility. What possible argument does he have with THAT position?? Agreeing with that forces him in no way to approve of other persons' (whether or not he considers them to be Christians) positions on different issues.
Does George O. Wood think we'll be better off, even as Christians, if we sink deeper into incivility?? Why is it difficult for him to say, for example, "Jim Wallis is wrong about a great deal, but he happens to be right (will miracles never cease?) about this!" I would suggest that he review the Gospels, where he will find numerous accounts of Jesus associating with the most despised of sinners. So, George, I've must ask, "What would Jesus do?"
Ideological purity (either theological or political) is a heavy yoke to bear. Set it aside, George, as Christ would have you do.
Posted by: post_reader_in_wv | April 15, 2010 9:41 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Wood has entirely missed the point of this Covenant of Civility and, in my opinion, he has also forgotten the fundamentals of Christianity (fellowship, forgiveness, and unity in Christ). One is not required to agree with another person's stance on political issues, but as a Christian you are required to love them, as Christ would and still does.
Posted by: CrossRoadsVA | April 16, 2010 11:50 AM
Report Offensive Comment
I see Spidermean2 just proved the need for the civility statement by wholesale declaring that some people, because of their belief in equality and justice, are not "people of God."
Such a judgment is not for humans to hand down; that authority rests in God and God alone.
Posted by: brimadison | April 17, 2010 8:52 AM
Report Offensive Comment
The comments to this entry are closed.
The whole purpose of the Civility Covenant is to encourage those with very different opinions and beliefs to discuss those differences in such a way as to reflect our belief in Christ. If we as Christians can not talk with and about each other in a civil manner, how do we expect to convince a sinful world that there is a better way to live and a higher calling than street fighting?