The Methodists, The Bishops, And The Library

Having spent almost 30 years on the Southern Methodist University faculty, I think I have a pretty good understanding of how fitting the place is for a Presidential Library that will honor George W. Bush. Mr. and Mrs. Bush are loyal Texans and professing Methodists; many of SMU's wealthiest and most prominent trustees and donors have been affiliated with Bush-style politics for a long time; and the two most prestigious universities in the state already have presidential libraries on their own campuses, leaving no room in those inns for this next one. Unless zoning restrictions, faculty truculence, or ecclesiastical meddling messes it up, this is a done deal.

And maybe that will be all right. With the Federal Archives people running the library, it should be possible for scholars to access enough relevant documents to figure out just how things were done in the Bush II years after all. There is a problem, though, not with the envisioned library, or perhaps even with an attached museum, but with a proposed Institute that will be dedicated to the enshrinement of neo-conservative agendas for as long as it takes Jesus to come back.

But maybe even that will be all right, too. For one thing, if the Institute can hogtie enough neo-conservative ideologues to begin substituting careful deliberation for hasty action on their part over the next few years, confined to a think tank rather than running amok at the Defense Department, the next administration or two may yet be able to dig us out of the morass into which their predecessor plunged us. And for another, if Institute doors are kept open wide enough, we might get a close enough look at these guys to understand and even appreciate them better. Right now, neo-cons are looking for all the world like people with an anti-social personality disorder.

As a former prof once in cahoots with several current members of SMU's theology community, I also think I have a pretty good understanding of how unfitting a Methodist-connected campus may be for a Bush Public Policy Institute. Through its General Conference, the denomination has issued several statements on war and peace that no reasonable person could read as in any way supportive of the invasion and occupation of Iraq. Over 100 Methodist bishops have flatly declared the war itself unjust and immoral. Does anyone seriously believe that a Bush Institute, down the road from a neo-con United Methodist mega-church and across the street from SMU's football stadium, would consider the bishops' position in any other terms than fringy?

A big issue for the 10 bishops now mucking around with the internal decision-making processes of the University is that Methodism's social policy pronouncements do not (and should not) carry the force normative doctrine. They cannot properly be appealed to as a set of constraints on what is to be taught, thought, and acted upon by the SMU community. Religiously affiliated colleges and universities that go gentle into that dark night of accepting unquestioningly the theological pronouncements of their sponsoring institutions are rarely if ever the better for it.

The really big issue for academic types is that the freedom to pursue the truth --- what SMU's very motto is all about --- requires you to mix it up with people you believe, often without warrant, too ignorant to be worthy of your attention, and with people who look upon you as a specimen they wish were on neither their campus nor their planet. Knocking over the sticky wickets through which genuine dialogue needs to flow, in the interest of ideological or doctrinal purity, is the surest way I know for a university to lose its soul, surer even than paying its football players under the table.

It is difficult, though, for unfettered inquiry to proceed unless all parties to the venture remain committed to seeing it through, no matter where it may lead. To say the least, the leadership style that the proposed Bush Institute will commemorate is not one that can breathe on its own for very long in SMU's classrooms, even if in the Institute's own hallways it may come as a welcome gust of refreshing air. And so, sad to say, the best course of action for both the Institute and the University may well be to build a high wall of separation from joint appointments and joint sponsorships. That would free SMU from at least some of the embarrassment of having to show up at the parties of its crazy neighbors next door. But it would also deprive the institution of an opportunity to convince Institute donors to put their money where the University's mouth is, in support of a genuinely cooperative enterprise that will permit looking at the Bush legacy from all sides.