Bush Library, Policy Center at SMU?
Filed Under: General
Southern Methodist University has been chosen as the site for the Bush Presidential Library to be constructed after President Bush is no longer in office. The decision on the part of the university has created a bit of conflict among some United Methodists. Southern Methodist University is owned by the South Central Jurisdiction of the United Methodist Church. You as United Methodists own this property. And that is where the question begin to be raised. I won’t attempt to capture the entire debate here but only a few of the questions raised by opponents. The primary concern is that in order to host the Bush Presidential Library the school is also required to host a Bush Public Policy Institute - a think tank that might be partisan and focused on promoting certain policies that might, at times, be contradictory to the Social Principles of the United Methodist Church. No one disagrees that the President has the right to form a public policy institute. The question is whether it should be housed on church owned property. A second question is whether the views of the public policy institute will be associated with SMU because of its location on the SMU campus. A third question is whether the use of church owned land for this Institute reflects tacit church support of the Institute. It is important to note that the Board of Trustees at the school have considered these issues but they feel that they have created safeguards and firewalls between the school and the library/policy institute. They note that the library will be a place of research for historians and political scientists of all different political and ideological stripes. They feel confident that the Institute will be clearly seen as separate from the University. And they feel the positives of allowing the library and institute to be located adjacent to, and on property owned by the school, far outweigh any potential negatives. The South Central Jurisdiction Mission Council of the United Methodist Church has examined the issue and given its approval as well. What are your thoughts on this issue? On Wednesday I’ll add my conclusions as a part of this thread of posts.
20 Comment(s)
Post a Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment.
John | Feb 23, 2008 | Reply
Oh, the howls of outrage against the Bush Library! For a year we have listened to the irate cries of those who think that Bush has violated his Methodism and therefore no UMC institution should host his library.
Look, it’s a simple matter: there are provisions in the Discipline for trying lay members of the UMC who are acting unMethodisty. So before we kick Bush out of SMU, it would behoove the UMC to engage due process and properly try and convict Bush in a church court.
Forgive my breach of blogging etiquette by providing a self-referatory link, but here is what the Discipline says:
http://locustsandhoney.blogspot.com/2007/01/should-president-bush-be-put-on-trial.html
chuckrussell | Feb 23, 2008 | Reply
Adam,
I think this is one of those issues that have rank and file Methodists scratching their heads. This is a perfect example of what you regularly talk about, the extreems of our denomination doing things that only serve to rip us apart. I cant believe this issue has even been raised, and I am proud of Bishop Jones and others who have prevented this from even being considered at the Jurisdictional level.
Darrell Holtz | Feb 24, 2008 | Reply
If I had a vote (which I don’t), I’d have voted to have no relationship at all between a church-related university and a presidential Library. Not just the Bush library–any presidential library. The Truman Library here in town is a valuable resource–it doesn’t need a university to lend it legitimacy. And, although the political passions of the Truman era are 60 years old, the Library clearly carries a pro-Truman (and his policies) flavor. We often see news coverage of the Nixon and Reagan Libraries hosting events, many of which have a partisan flavor.
As Christians we need to be personally informed about, and involved in, our country’s political life. But precisely because we reach differing conclusions (I believe, for example, that “pre-emptive war” is a destructive distortion of Christian thinking about “just war,” but I know other good Christians hold different views than mine), I believe the church’s witness is hampered and limited when the church associates itself with and embraces one side of a political divide, in the absence of a clear moral consensus in the church community.
I find it highly unlikely that SMU and the Bush Library will be viewed as separate. But, on that score, I hope I’m wrong, and that the Trustees are correct.
Stearman | Feb 24, 2008 | Reply
I think a careful investigation of the motives behind this issue will disclose ego, hate,jealousy and desire for church power notoriety. It is beneath anyone’s dignity for the General Conference to spend its time even discussing such a irrelevant matter.
lonestar | Feb 24, 2008 | Reply
As a new member of the UMC, I find it very interesting to watch this unfolding. As an Episcopalian for about 55 years, I watched the beginning of the schism in the Episcopal Church due to the very liberal actions of the church with respect to ordination of a gay bishop as well as other changes in the worship which were characterized as a reflection of a more “modern thinking” (to heck with tradition or the scriptures). Now everyone is apparently concerned with a (Bush) presidential library associated with SMU. Would anyone REALLY care if it were someone other than President Bush?
Why can’t the church just do what it’s there for - teach the scriptures and allow people to worship and keep politics and a person’s choice as a liberal or conservative a private matter?
chuckrussell | Feb 24, 2008 | Reply
Daryl,
Having worked at SMU in the late 1990’s its important, I think, to understand two things. One, that SMU is a very Republican leaning school. From the Cox business school to the School of law, to the Gerald R. Ford Football field, the school has a long tradition of being connected to and with the Republican party. Also President Bush’s membership is at Highland Park UMC which is on the SMU campus. As such the Bush Library makes a tremendous amount of sense at SMU.
Second, SMU as a whole can hardly be considered a Religious Institution. It is true that there is a Methodist seminary, but for the most part thats where the influence of the Methodist Church ends. Its president is not Methodist, barely half of its Board is Methodist, and that only came about after the Football problems of years past. Previous to those scandals there wasn’t event a Wesley foundation on campus.
Finally, I would argue that if in fact we were to block the presidential Library from going forward, we should also ask Emory University (A Methodist School in Atlanta) To discontinue its support of the Carter Center.
Personally I support both the Carter Center and the Bush Presidential Library.
chuckrussell | Feb 24, 2008 | Reply
Lonestar,
While you and I may come down on the same “side” politically. I do disagree that our faith and our political choices to remain private. Maybe I’m biased because I have both a Political Science degree and a Theology degree, but to make your faith a private matter, is to regulate the things you most deeply believe in, the things that inform and inspire your soul, to the basement storage of your life. Maybe they shouldn’t be out on the front porch, but I cant imagine not having them out where people would see them!
switzi | Feb 25, 2008 | Reply
I worked at Stanford University for 11 years. As most people know, the Hoover Institution of War, Revolution, and Peace is located in the middle of that very liberal campus. While the Hoover Institution is not a presidential library (that’s in Iowa), it is a very conservative think tank. Faculties and fellows conflict and argue a great deal. They have tried to kick the Hoover off-campus to no avail. They were successful in keeping the Reagan Presidential Library from locating at Stanford though.
But the two groups do co-exist and many people are shocked when they find out that the Hoover is located at Stanford. I guess what I am trying to say here is that a think tank can exist on a university campus and keep its own identity.
If indeed the faculty at SMU are more conservative than most academic faculty, then housing both the presidential library and a think tank on the campus should not be that much of a problem. Even if they are liberal, I think it is good to have some of the other side balancing out things for the students.
chuckrussell | Feb 25, 2008 | Reply
Here is a recent UMNS story on the Issue…I think I’m in total agreement with Bishop Jones on this one. Sorry for the long ugly url.
http://www.umc.org/site/apps/nlnet/content3.aspx?c=lwL4KnN1LtH&b=1723955&ct=5054153
Kip Baum | Feb 26, 2008 | Reply
Quick Admission: I’ve been skeptical of the time and value of blogging. This represents my first such post and it’s pleasing how the various perspectives have influenced my own thoughts.
In particular, I’d forgotten that my undergraduate years were at a college founded by Baptists – for that’s not the primary aspect I associate with that institution. Nor had I realized that the Bush Library would represent something of a quid-pro-quo within Methodism vis-a-vis the Carter Library. Thanks for these insights!
A brief glance at the Presidential Library Acts of 1955 and 1986 further revised my response. If my reading is correct, private land may be gifted to the US with or without transfer of title. This alone sets the stage for political intrigue, such that I find the provisions of the act fundamentally suspect. It would seem preferable if public lands were used for this purpose, in line with the fact that the national archives system subsequently administers the libraries. It does not seem reasonable for churches to have made any such gifts, irrespective of party; and I can now understand the inference of tacit support.
That said, I’ve come to the conclusion that the long-term “association factor” will be a moot point, for the legacy of any commander-in-chief worth his (her) mettle will neither be bounded by nor strictly associated with any building complex.
I see particularly little risk in the case of the current administration, the public policies of which will impact not only subsequent administrations in our country, but most of the globe for some time to come - well beyond any particular focus on SMU…
Adam | Feb 28, 2008 | Reply
Great comments – thank you each for contributing to the discussion. Here are my thoughts as a United Methodist pastor, a graduate of SMU and someone who disagrees with President Bush’s policy regarding preventative war (the policy that gave justification of the Iraq War): 1. The library will be an asset to the university – whether you agree with President Bush’s politics or not. A presidential library represents an important archive of historical material which will draw scholars to the library, and to SMU. 2. I don’t believe the Board of Trustees at SMU will allow the “think tank” to negatively affect the university. To the degree that SMU hires outstanding political science, theology and ethics faculty, the presence of the think tank in geographic proximity to the university will likely promote vigorous debate and discussion of its policies, and it is just as likely to produce a reaction to them as it is to influence students to embrace these policies. In the market place of ideas the institute will have to demonstrate the superiority of its positions. 3. Looking at the Hoover Institute’s website (www.hoover.org), on which the Hoover Institute and Stanford University are clearly linked together, I think there is a danger that the policies of the “think tank” will be associated with SMU and it is important that SMU request that the name Southern Methodist University not be used in a way that would indicate that the actions or policies of the think tank are those of SMU. I think this can be done, but it would be helpful to see this spelled out. 4. I trust that President Turner, the Board of Trustees, and the Mission Council of the South Central Jurisdiction of the United Methodist Church which includes several United Methodist bishops have all done their job. I don’t believe we want the General Conference nor the entire Jurisdictional Conference mircromanaging them. 5. I am probably more concerned about how some of the activities at the Greek houses might influence students at SMU as I am the think tank - we allow a host of groups to have access to our United Methodist college campuses whose values and activities might not be in keeping with our social principles. 6. Having said all of this, I believe it would have been wise to have had the “think tank” on property adjacent to the school, but not owned by the school. This would have avoided much of the controversy. That did not happen, and I trust that there were good reasons why it did not. In the end I think the presence of the library and think tank will promote serious reflection and healthy debate and response from both the seminary and the various other schools at SMU. I appreciate those of my colleagues and former professors who raised these questions - I think they are worth discussing. Thanks to all of you who offered your thoughts!
Tom | Mar 1, 2008 | Reply
I know Bush is not popular but he is the President. Like it or not he was elected twice. He has been at the helm over what will be very historic events. These events have had huge impacts on scores of people across the globe. There is lots of room about what kind of impact but that is for another column. These libraries are the focus of serious study of those events. If we as a country truly want to learn about these events we need to have this study. SMU is greatly facilitating this discussion by housing the library. Remember it is just a library, not an election headquarters. They all will get a stipend from the National Records Center. Those places will become Federal entities too.
I urge people to face the issues from the past eight years. Don’t try to silence discussion just because of your opinion of the past eight years. We all know how well sticking your head in the sand works for the ostriches of Africa.
Northstar | Mar 5, 2008 | Reply
Pastor Hamilton, did you mean to call Bush’s Iraq war policy preventative? Or did you mean preemptive? My understanding is that preventative war is considered aggression, which is against international law, whereas preemtive war is self-defense against a known future threat, which will render the enemy powerless to harm. So are you saying you do believe Bush lied, and didn’t really have the intelligence to prove a threat was eminent (ie WMD)? Making his Iraq war policy preventative and merely aggression against a “perceived” threat without evidence? I know that you don’t know for sure, but I do want to understand your point of view.
Adam | Mar 5, 2008 | Reply
Thanks, Northstar, for a perceptive question. In some ways I consider this a matter of semantics and believe it is difficult to legitimately differentiate between these two terms. Some use them as you have suggested. Others do not. As you have noted, some define preemptive war as a legitimate use of force to pre-empt a real and imminent attack by an enemy. This requires a very high degree of certainty and supporting evidence if one will wage a preemptive war. To do so without this level of evidence and support opens the possibility of wrongly waging war. I am not suggesting that President Bush lied. I am suggesting that the level of evidence for an imminent attack was simply not present. In my opinion, nothing he claimed at the time before going to war indicated a clear danger of an imminent attack against the United States or our allies. Consequently, according to the use of the terms as commonly used, the Iraq War was a preventative (also called a preventive) war - a war waged to prevent a possible future threat. I believe President Bush has since acknowledged that there was no imminent danger of attack, only a danger that at some point in the future Iraq could have restarted their weapons program and, at that point, could have chosen to attack the United States (or give weapons to those who would). This possible threat does not meet the requirements of a justified preemptive war and thus the Iraq War would seem to better be characterized as a preventative or preventive war. Thanks for asking, Northstar. By the way, do you feel that there was a clear and imminent threat of attack by Iraq that justified our going to war?
Northstar | Mar 6, 2008 | Reply
Thank you Pastor Hamilton for the level of detail in your response. You ask if I believed there was an imminent threat of attack by Iraq? I did not get that far. I did not feel qualified to judge CIA intelligence. I tried, but ultimately I had to throw in the towel. But, I did feel those in positions of authority were more than qualified and I had faith in their judgements, Bush, Powell, Congress ect. Much the same as I have faith in YOU as a pastor and a leader. I don’t always agree with you, but I trust you and that is more important. A lack of trust brings everything into question. So thank you again for clarifing your position.
Believer | Mar 8, 2008 | Reply
Religion and politics is a bad mix. When the Christian Right agreed to be so closely identified with right wing Republicans, mainstream Christians became lost in the distinction.
Many people looking for God were turned off by the failed policies of the George W. Bush administration and others are leaving the church because of it. With the Bush Library/Think Tank at SMU, it is only logical for them to associate United Methodists with Bush policy.
Iraq War, Lies, Corruption, Torture, Tax breaks for the wealthy, etc. These are Bush policies. Both parties are guilty of many of the same mistakes. However, it is Bush that says the Religious community is his base supporters. I strongly feel Christians should distance ourselves from all politics. I am not saying we should not vote, but that we should not -as a group - endorse one politician/party over the other. Including the SMU/Bush partnership.
My son opposed the Iraq war from the beginning. Now, he no longer wants to be part of the Christian community and says he lost faith in God. You have no idea how many tears I have shed.
How many soldiers lost in Iraq?
How many souls lost here at home?
Canopus | Mar 10, 2008 | Reply
I heard an interesting podcast the other day … it was Talk of the Nation from March 3. “The Religious Right Hits Soul-Searching Times.” It said that a new poll on Beliefnet has indicated that the association of Christianity with certain ideals held by the religious right (I am not talking about abortion here…but social issues concerning poverty and foreign policy issues) have caused people to turn “off” on Christianity and that many religious leaders were having second thoughts about where to go from here because of this. Here is the article the show referenced: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/22/AR2008022202383.html
Adam | Mar 11, 2008 | Reply
Canopus, you are right about this. I’ve just picked up a new book called “unchristian” published by the Barna Group about the way young adults look at Christianity today and their reaction to the religious right. Both my sermons on Seeing Gray and an upcoming book I’ve written on this subject are in large part an attempt to articulate the gospel in a way that is unchained from the religious right - able to appreciate how they arose and why; but also able to offer an alternative to it (and to its opposite, the religious left). Thanks for the link!
Wesleyite | May 1, 2008 | Reply
Another thing to consider is that SMU, while owned by the conference there, and obviously having “Methodist” in its name is not what you would call a “Christian” school anymore. The school has great academics but there are many kids who go there who have nothing of a personal faith in Jesus Christ. There is also plenty going on with students there that would be labeled “unchristian”. To start pulling the “Methodist card” now after letting SMU fall away as a true Methodist Christian school seems a bit hypocritical.
Fred | May 2, 2008 | Reply
If you are a reasonable, thinking person with serious and objective concerns about the “Bush Library on SMU campus” issue (and I realize there are such people, but I think the vast majority of those who have concerns are simply politically-motivated), then the person you should talk to or email is our bishop, Scott Jones, whose blogroll is on here. He’s a reasonable, thinking person; he’s objective; and he’s absolutely brilliant. More importantly, unlike most people who talk about this issue, he actually knows and understands what’s going on, including the process undertaken. We should be very proud to have such fine leadership on this issue, whether you agree with the ultimate decision or not.