Considering Resolutions

by William J. Nottingham
President Emeritus, Division of Overseas Ministries
Affiliate Professor of Mission, Christian Theological Seminary

On June 20, 1995, members of the Southern Baptist Convention meeting in Atlanta for their 150th anniversary voted overwhelmingly in support of a resolution to repent for racism, the defense of slavery, and opposition to the civil rights movement which typified their history. It was a witness that made page one of The New York Times as well as most other news media.

Disciples should take note that sometimes a resolution is good and necessary even when it is long overdue. As we discuss the appropriateness of resolutions, we must make sure that it will still be possible for representatives gathered in the international manifestation of the church to take a stand on issues of importance.

When leaders like Robert McNamara, U.S. Secretary of Defense from 1961 to 1968, publish a book admitting that the Vietnam War was a mistake, it is clear that Disciples had it right when we called for peace in Vietnam forty years ago. It is unthinkable that we might in any way apologize for this resolution being too "controversial."

A cursory survey of resolutions over the last fifty years shows a history of concern for evangelism, Christian unity, agriculture and farmworkers, urban crisis, use of alcohol, support for National and World Councils of Churches, etc. There was a time when support for the American Bible Society was called for in every annual International Convention!

But no controversial area appeared in resolutions more than racism. In 1956 at Des Moines, a survey on inclusive membership, to which 2053 congregations responded, reported that 191 said that persons of color were not welcome! In 1959 at Denver, a partial listing of fifteen resolutions on racism since 1936 was given, and a 2600 word statement of "principles and policies" on the Role of the Church in a Multiracial Society was voted in 1960 at Louisville. In 1969, the "Black Manifesto" began a series of a dozen resolutions calling for Christian responsibility in race relations and justice in society.

Even church-state relations and school prayer were issues for resolutions long ago. At Detroit in 1964, Dr. A.Dale Fiers is quoted telling a committee of Congress that there was a need for "a more adequate opportunity for national discussion and creative thinking...over a considerable period of time."

Many resolutions dealing with the mission of the church through the years were sponsored by what is now the Division of Homeland Ministries, recalling the debate in 1959 on "resolutions dealing with crucial issues on which the church must speak...."

Early resolutions on world issues were general, relating to peace, nuclear disarmament, changes in the Third World and refugees, many coming from the Disciples Peace Fellowship. It was the 1970's and 80's that brought a series of international resolutions on specific countries, human rights abuses, and U.S. foreign policy. This reflected the new era of partnership among churches in ecumenical mission, the restructure creating the Division of Overseas Ministries, and the new role of the United States in world affairs beginning with the war in Vietnam.

History has proven these resolutions well-founded and mostly vindicated in time: normalization of relations with Vietnam and China; recognition of Panama's sovereignty over its own canal; the dictatorship in Paraguay; torture in Brazil; the disappearance of thousands in Argentina (including dropping prisoners in the ocean from helicopters); the brutal reign of Pinochet; the iron rule of the KMT in Taiwan; the oppression under Marcos in the Philippines; the dictatorship of Park Chung Hee in South Korea; the US and white South African alliance with Unita in Angola and Renamo in Mozambique, etc.; support for Nelson Mandela and the struggles of the African National Congress; the call for divestment in South Africa; support for the churches of Eastern Europe and the importance of Christian unity across political boundaries; the call for peace with justice between Israelis and Palestinians; opposition to U.S. support of the contras in Nicaragua; opposition to arms for killers of Catholic missionaries in El Salvador; the need for an international call for the reunification of Korea; and the need for U.S. and international response to the ethnic extermination taking place in Bosnia-Herzegovina.

Many of these resolutions were ahead of their time. All were important, addressing life and death situations in the world mission of the church. They were requested of the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) in the United States and Canada by churches in the countries concerned. Their purpose was not a political agenda but the effect of political situations on people's lives, especially vast numbers of the poor and oppressed. It is not true that such actions and the ministries related to them could have been done by humanitarian organizations. They were a witness to the unity of the Church of Jesus Christ and said to the larger community that there is a moral authority in Scripture and faith that transcends the interests of economic and political power.

Perhaps the world situation has changed enough to require a different kind of response. Undoubtedly we need a better system for discussion, debate, and effective witness. But speaking out on important issues through our resolutions has been a good use of our time together--and we have a similar responsibility for the Church of the future.