Judy Green-Davis
I regularly read Disciples World, the monthly publication of the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ), the sister denomination to mine, United Church of Christ. In the November issue, the cover articles are about the Jonestown Massacres. For those of you too young to remember, thirty years ago, Rev. James Jones, an ordained minister of the Disciples, led a congregation of about 1,000 people into a jungle outpost in Guyana, South America. There, what began as a utopia of a diverse, interracial congregation dedicated to serving the poor, homeless, and those in need of medical care became a nightmare in which over 900 people died in a “revolutionary suicide” to use Jones’ term by purposely (and some against their will) ingesting poisoned Kool-Aid.
There have been many ethical questions that have faced the denomination in the aftermath of this terrible tragedy. And those of us who are old enough to remember the awful incident will probably never be able to rid our retinas of the photos of the dead lying together, holding each other.
Like my denomination, the Disciples have no hierarchy, no bishop, or pope to oversee individual congregations. Jesus is the head of the church. A local church can call anyone to be their pastor and the Disciples have no authority to remove such a pastor…even one not ordained by the Disciples.
The Jonestown situation was very complex. There were prominent politicians involved, there was the actual substantial service to the poor by the congregation, and there were reports of increasing bizarre behavior by Rev. Jim Jones. But the denomination was unable to confront Jones with the issues because he was in South America. The denomination’s rules require a pastor to review the charges against him/her prior to being held in discussion about the issues. Jones was not coming back to the California/Nevada regional conference. Therefore, no charges were ever discussed.
I think the outcome of this whole dreadful story is interesting. In this issue, the Disciples recognize that their ideal of congregational freedom was at the root of the tragedy. Yet, they met afterward and decided not to change their policies. They still have no way to police ministers that go over the edge. And the same is true in my own denomination. The Disciples acknowledge in this issue of Disciples World that the same thing could happen again. I suppose it could in my own denomination.
So the ethical issue becomes, when does a nominative belief (congregational liberty) become potentially hurtful? Does the denomination curtail a nominative belief in order to prevent an outlaw relational belief by a rogue pastor? How does a denomination (which is always diverse) make a decision about a normative belief that is so potentially risky and that has proven to be disastrous?
Readers of the issue will assuredly register their ethic opinions in the December issue. What is your opinion?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
regarding the blog on Jonesville I think this issue strikes at the very heart of the danger inherent in the democratic process when that process is practiced in its purest form, that is the absolutist ideal of the majority rule. This purism can lead to the suppression of rights and the denial of civil liberties when that majority feels threatened by some marginal or unconventional minority. In the secular world we have courts and legislatures to protect these groups. In the church we rely on the hierarchy or some other governing agency to provide that protection. Of course in a hierarchical structure the question rarely arises because controls and pronouncements are inherent to the system. The danger with this type of structure is that it can lead to dictatorship and repression. So it would seem that the best way to deal with this situation is through a type of governance that allows congregations to control thier own destinies unless they move beyond the boundries of the faith. Then some outside body would be required to rein in the errant congregation. The trick is, of course, to exercise this responsibility judiciously and with no attempt to interfere with congregations that are merely practicing ctreative theology. Jack Evans artlab1689
ReplyDeleteI really want to comment on this post, although I'm not sure I have much in the way of ideas with regard to your ethical question, Judy. But I'll give it a try. I remember the Jonestown massacre. I would have been about 20 at the time this occurred, and I remember wondering why in the world those people would've drunk the koolaid in the first place, assuming they knew it was poisoned. Then, a couple of months ago, I saw a documentary about Jim Jones and the People's Temple, and the information they included in the documentary really opened my eyes to the real situation. Your comments, Judy, added yet another dimension to the story, and brings up some really interesting and thought-provoking ideas. I think if we really looked hard, we would see that there are a number of evangelical preachers out there (especially the televangelists) who are like Jim Jones - dynamic, charismatic, easily liked - and people flock to them, believing that they have the right ideas and information that will help them lead a better, more spiritual life. What they don't realize is that what is really happening to them is they are being sucked into a religious vacuum that may or may not have good intentions...IMHO, it's usually the latter. This was obviously the case with Jim Jones, and it was really unfortunate that the church as an organization was not able to do anything to reign him in before he killed all of those people.
ReplyDeleteI think the question of congregational liberty is much like our American liberty of free speech. Without it, your denomination would not be your denomination, and if congregational liberty is one of the core values of the church, then they must uphold it, even if it can cause harm. Now, having said that, might there be precautions that the church organization could take to lessen the possibility of another Jonestown? I would hope so...but not to the detriment of the core value itself. For a denomination such as yours, which does not have an overseeing body, like a Bishop or Conference officers, this could be much more of a challenge, but I would hope they would find some way to uphold their core values while perhaps instituting some sort of process - call it a screening process for lack of a better word - to weed out those who are truly unfit for ministry and also oversee or monitor those who are in ministry for the sake of their parishoners. Now, having said all of that, I just say I'm not totally in agreement with the process my own denomination uses for determining those who are fit (or unfit) for ministry, so there's work to be done on both ends of the spectrum.
It's interesting, Jody, there is a small, very fundamental group within my denomination (United Church of Christ) who are very much interested in control and structure. So the question becomes, independence is a core value--but for whom?
ReplyDeleteI could just as easily point out the atrocities done in the name of churches under some external authority, and can probably name much more. Anything can be abused. The issue you bring up doesn't seem to be congregational autonomy at all, but rather a charismatic rogue pastor with a delusional view of the world and himself. Our political system has been used for evil before as well, but I don't think the solution is necessarily to overthrow it and institute a new system. The task is to make our political system work better and true to its best spirit. In my opinion, the same principle can and should be applied to our denominations and churches as well.
ReplyDeleteJimmy, Jones became a rogue pastor but in the beginning, he was sane enough to go successfully through the ordination process. His congregation did wonderful things for the marginalized in their respective communities for many years. Even in South America, they took in homeless children and ran medical clinics. That makes the situation in the early stages harder to deal with.
ReplyDeleteAlso, the Disciples were caught in their own structure by not being able to confront him when he wouldn't appear before a council. I wonder why they didn't appeal to outside help. That only happened when family members of people in the Temple called on members of Congress for help.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteGreat question Judy! I have been reading this blog over and over again over the last few days thinking of how to respond. Since I have been a lifelong member of the Disciples of Christ, this situation hits home. While I was not alive during this time period, I have done some research into the Jonestown situation. As a church the Disciples of Christ do pride our selves on autonomy. Our independence both as churches and as individual Christians are valued as a core belief. In the case of Jones Jones, there has been some research done to believe that he suffered from emotional problems as child. He obviously had enough composure to finish seminary, become ordained and build a successful church. Within Disciples of Christ ordination now happens at the regional levels. However, at the times of Jones’ ordination I believe this power could come from individual congregations. Jones was ordained, I believe, in Indiana where the church originated before moving to San Francisco. As a denomination I have noticed that most churches and congregants are mainly supervised by the regional level rather than the national.
ReplyDeleteJudy is right that Jones was summoned for a hearing for the Disciples of Christ in which I believe they wanted to take away his standing within the church. At the time this was the only way that his standing could be revoked. He repeatedly refused to show up to the commission meetings and ignored the requests. Eventually he traveled to South America where he could avoid the church completely. The first time I heard about Jonestown from a co-counselor of mine at the Oregon High School Camp two summers ago. Graham lost his sister in the Jonestown massacre. After this tragedy Graham gathered the letters he received from his sister from South America, and her story and began educating people on the danger of spiritual corruptness. Graham is still an active member in the Christian Church Disciples of Christ and from what I know does not blame the church’s autonomy for Jones’ actions.
So my conclusion is that as a member of the Christian Church Disciples of Christ I value the autonomy that the church holds. Although I agree that churches need some system of checks and balances regarding appropriate religious and spiritual practices. I do not believe that the autonomy of the church was completely to blame for Jones’ actions. God blessed us with free will, but in our freedom, our actions need to be pleasing to God and non-harmful to others.
Katie--in your denomination, can denominational officials (perhaps regional) take the ordination from a minister or just the standing? In the UCC, we can remove (at the regional level) standing but not ordination. That means a rogue pastor can find it difficult or impossible to find a call (or a job) in the UCC but such a person remains a pastor.
ReplyDeleteKatie -- I just read your posting tonight and found it so genuine and heart-felt. You say in the end that you "do not believe that the autonomy of the church was COMPLETELY to blame for Jones' actions." I would refer back to other comments and say that perhaps autonomy allowed for the set up, but in my view church autonomy was not the cause. This man and his psychological problems were the cause of this very sad and painful chapter in the life of your denomination's history.
ReplyDeleteBased on your description of how he came to ordination -- evidently by his local congregation -- I think that there is no guarantee that he had any psychological stability from the outset.
The original question had to do with whether or not the church found it necessary to change a normative belief that had become potentially hurtful. I think in the case of Jim Jones, the church had actually already changed the situation that had caused this problem in the first place, that being the ability of the local congregation to ordain.
What happened at Jonestown is a tragic event in the pursuit of happiness. It shows that religion without common sense and science is the ultimate ignorance. It is a tragedy that could have been avoided with more education. It was a predatory method of religion to exacerbate individuals with socio economic problems by promising them utopia on earth.
ReplyDeleteI am coming into the conversation very late, but last fall, there was a long article in the LA Weekly about a couple and their children who were caught up in the Jim Jones cult. The husband and wife both were very high up in the hierarchy of the church. The wife played a huge roll in the mass suicide, while the husband had tried to rescue his children after realizing the enormity and complexity of the problem.
ReplyDeleteWithout an overseeing body, there is a potential in every congregation with a charismatic leader to begin to follow the minister off the path of Jesus. To lead to this kind of destruction needs to have a high level of complicity in the board and other lay leadership. Perhaps this might not happen again, because so much more is known about mental illness than thirty years ago. Is there so much autonomy that the ministers do not communicate with other ministers? Since the members practiced for the mass suicides on numerous occasions, there had to be an awareness on some level. Once Jones took the congregation overseas though, it was completely out of the hands of the denomination. According to the gist of the article, the conditions were ripe for the failed social experiment that was Jonestown.
I would hope that the larger body would interfere or intervene with another leader should his preaching stray so far from the message of Jesus that people begin calling the leader father and practice for suicide in obedience to him. Jesus did not ask for that.
This story is incredible! I didn’t know this story. After I read the posting, I wanted to know about Jonestown more. So, I researched about that.
ReplyDeleteWhen I researched this story, I could know something. When Jonestown happened, there were miserable situations in the world; WWII, Cold War, 6.25 War which happened in Korea, Great Depression, and Racism. In those situations, people felt uneasy and they desired eagerly the safe place. Meanwhile, Jonestown was the right place to people who desired the safe place and peace.
Through this story, I think that the churches or governments did not take care of people, so people went to Jonestown. I believe that churches need to respond the situations in which people live and suffer.
The tragic event like Jonestown will never happen again, if ministers and churches respond and take care of the situations and people.