September 2000 -- A quarterly news letter for United Methodists
Contents
|
| Guest Column: A TESTIMONY In 1973 I was a middle-class, single, 23-year-old college student. After a "one-night stand," I learned that I was pregnant. There was no one to whom I could turn. Alone, I went to the university medical center and had a D & C abortion. Afterwards, I walked home—again, alone.
A year later, despite precautions, I was pregnant again. My boyfriend wanted nothing to do with the whole situation, so he gave me half the abortion fee. I drove myself to a clinic an hour away, had the abortion, and drove home alone. That was the end of the relationship with that man. And that was the end of my problem, I thought. In 1976 I married and settled in another state. We joined a United Methodist church, and I became active in its UMW. At a UMW meeting in the early 1980s, during a discussion of abortion, I admitted, even bragged about, my two abortions. I did not mention any details, or that my thoughts and feelings about the abortions were eating away at my insides. Months later, I shared my experiences of abortion—and the pain, guilt, and fears they caused?with a friend. I was convinced that God hated me and would punish me with no more children. My friend listened and cared. In the midst of many tears, we prayed for God’s forgiveness. And forgiveness came. I remember that moment as if it happened yesterday. From personal experience, I know that abortion virtually guarantees the "devastating damage" our Social Principles (Par. 65J, 1996 Discipline) say we want to avoid. If I were the only woman to experience these consequences of abortion, then my testimony could be ignored. Unfortunately, there are millions of women, like me, who have had abortions and who have suffered similar, or worse, consequences. Planned Parenthood’s Alan Guttmacher Institute admits that 90% of the women who have had abortions would not have done so had they believed they had another option. All women who face unplanned pregnancies need people who will care about them and their long-term welfare. As followers of Jesus Christ, as The United Methodist Church, we can and we should love them both. —Cindy Evans
UNITED
METHODISM OPPOSES PARTIAL-BIRTH ABORTION: The 2000 General Conference of The United Methodist Church voted—by an overwhelming majority of 622-275—to oppose partial-birth abortion. Here is the exact wording of the legislative action: "We oppose the use of late-term abortion known as dilation and extraction (partial-birth abortion) and call for the end of this practice except when the physical life of the mother is in danger and no other medical procedure is available, or in the case of severe fetal anomalies incompatible with life." In the 2000 edition of The Book of Discipline, United Methodism’s book of church law, this sentence will be added to the present paragraph on abortion (Paragraph 65J in the 1996 Discipline). To United Methodists and to others who are dedicated to the Gospel of Life, this is certainly good news. General Conference 2000’s action against partial-birth abortion marks a milestone in The United Methodist Church’s official position on abortion. At the same time, our elation should be qualified, for by approving a sentence against partial-birth abortion, The United Methodist Church has taken just one, short step toward fully protecting the most helpless and vulnerable among us—the unborn child and mother. What follows are the reasons for this double response. REASONS FOR REJOICING
Here are five reasons for rejoicing over the 2000 General Conference’s rejection of partial-birth abortion. First, by opposing partial-birth abortion, The United Methodist Church breaks ranks with the pro-choice/pro-abortion political lobby. Before this legislation against partial-birth abortion was passed by General Conference, The United Methodist Church had been officially and unquestionably pro-choice on abortion, for decades, and silent on the partial-birth procedure. The Book of Discipline’s pro-choice paragraph and its silence on partial-birth abortion allowed United Methodist leaders and general-church boards to support political lobbies which are sustaining the legality of all abortion, including this particularly repulsive form of late-term abortion. In this way, certain United Methodist leaders and boards provided religious cover, religious legitimation, to those who are maintaining the legal status of partial-birth abortion. Therefore, certain United Methodist leaders and institutions directly collaborated with the Culture of Death. However, now that the anti-partial-birth-abortion language has been added to the Discipline, The United Methodist Church is no longer a partial-birth-abortion collaborator. Therefore, The United Methodist Church officially opposes what, a matter of months ago, she was supporting?the radical, pro-choice/pro-abortion political lobby. Second and more specifically, by opposing partial-birth abortion, The United Methodist Church now lives in tension with the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice (RCRC). RCRC basically advocates, in the political halls of the powers that be, for the legal availability of abortion on demand. For example, RCRC has worked Capitol Hill to maintain the legality of partial-birth abortion. Two United Methodist boards?namely, the General Board of Church and Society and the Women’s Division/General Board of Global Ministries?are affiliated with RCRC. However, since United Methodism now officially opposes partial-birth abortion, the church as a whole now officially disapproves of some of RCRC’s political work. Third, by opposing partial-birth abortion, The United Methodist Church joins the ecumenical community on this issue. The vast majority of Christian communions—the Roman Catholic Church, the Orthodox churches, the Evangelical Protestant churches, and some Mainline/Oldline Protestant churches (now including The United Methodist Church)—are staunchly opposed to this form of abortion. Fourth, by officially opposing partial-birth abortion, The United Methodist Church encourages her own bishops, district superintendents, and pastors to be more truthful in addressing God’s gift of human life and the sin of abortion. This General Conference action gives official, denominational permission to United Methodist leaders to serve more faithfully the Gospel of Life and to oppose more vigorously the Culture of Death. Fifth, by opposing partial-birth abortion, The United Methodist Church shows that she is able to overcome the maneuverings of the small but well-organized pro-choice/pro-abortion minority within the denomination. By refusing to compromise the anti-partial-birth language it passed (by adding a health-of-the-mother exception) and by refusing to refer the sentence to the General Board of Church and Society (where the sentence most certainly would have been altered beyond recognition or totally eliminated), General Conference displayed some real determination against the pro-choice/pro-abortion strategies that have long held sway in United Methodism’s General Conferences. REASONS FOR REALISM
While passage of this sentence is to be admired, there is still much work to be done, with regard to abortion, in The United Methodist Church. First, the anti-partial-birth-abortion sentence is added to a basically pro-choice statement on abortion. This addition leaves in place a presumption for abortion on demand. It leaves unchanged a theology which elevates the "sovereign self," when considering the matters of life and abortion, above the sovereign God. It leaves the pregnant woman to make up her own mind about abortion?as long as she prays and consults with others during her decision-making, and as long as she does not use the partial-birth method. In other words, the legislative action on abortion by the most recent General Conference is a compromise—a decent compromise, a constructive compromise, a helpful compromise, but still a compromise. The Faith and Order legislative committee considered all petitions related to abortion. By a margin of two to one, most of Faith and Order’s roughly one hundred delegate members were theologically evangelical and/or orthodox. In addition, several of the committee’s members are strong, articulate voices for the truth of the Gospel within United Methodism. And Faith and Order was chaired by a pastor who was at least fair, and perhaps sympathetic, to the Gospel of Life. Even with these seemly pro-life advantages, Faith and Order behaved rather disappointingly: it bunched together tens of petitions which proposed major, pro-life rewrites of United Methodism’s teaching on abortion and denied the entire bunch the committee’s seal of approval (i.e., a vote of concurrence). Then General Conference went along with Faith and Order’s decision to dismiss the petitions that involved major rewrites. Given Faith and Order’s and General Conference’s fatigue after legislatively dealing with the issue of homosexuality, this compromise becomes rather understandable. However, at the end of the day, while coming out strongly against partial-birth abortion, General Conference had affirmed a paragraph on abortion that is filled with theological problems and moral confusions. That is, General Conference, as usual, behaved in an institutionally conservative way: it did the easy thing (oppose partial-birth abortion) and avoided the hard thing (revise the paragraph on abortion to reflect classical, Christian teaching). Second, passage of this anti-partial-birth-abortion sentence puts The United Methodist Church slightly ahead of the American political culture. And that is good. But should not the Church be more determined in its faithfulness to the God of Life and the Gospel of Life, and more comprehensive in its opposition to abortion? Stated differently, passage of this sentence, in theory and hope, offers protection to only a limited number of unborn children and their mothers. Instead of attempting to protect thousands of children and mothers, by opposing partial-birth abortion, The United Methodist Church should be joining other churches in attempting to protect hundreds of thousands, by opposing most or all abortions. Third, adoption of this sentence does not fundamentally change the hearts and minds of key church leaders, many of whom remain oblivious to the evil of abortion. It is amazing?yes, amazing?that United Methodism’s Council of Bishops, as a council, continues to remain silent about the abortion crisis in church and society. More specifically, when the United States Supreme Court’s Stenberg v. Carhart decision voided Nebraska’s ban of partial-birth abortion, the Council of Bishops and individual bishops of the church were given a golden opportunity to speak against this form of abortion on the basis of the new statement in The Book of Discipline. Unfortunately, the Council of Bishops and individual bishops, to date, are still silent on the Nebraska decision and partial-birth abortion. Again, much more witness within and from The United Methodist Church, on behalf of the Gospel of Life, is called for. It is most encouraging to note the tens of pro-life petitions submitted to General Conference 2000. They indicate a tremendous amount of theological and moral energy among pro-life United Methodists. That energy will need to be sustained in the years to come. CONCLUSION
The 2000 General Conference made a decisive announcement to The United Methodist Church and to the world. This was the announcement: The United Methodist Church is standing with the unborn child and mother who are threatened by partial-birth abortion. Therefore, the pro-choice/pro-abortion establishment within The United Methodist Church no longer speaks for the church. To be sure, the new pro-life voice of the church, willing to oppose only partial-birth abortion, is a bit timid. But from now on, by the providential grace of God and through the power of the Holy Spirit, that voice will gain confidence. In time, United Methodism’s voice will speak more comprehensively with clarity, truth, and love about the gift of life and the evil of abortion. Therefore, there is a pressing need for pro-life United Methodists to hold faithfully to the truth, to persevere in speaking and living the truth, and to be patient in truth all along the way. In the wake of the United States Supreme Court’s June decision, Stenberg v. Carhart, this counsel to faithfulness and truthfulness is especially pressing. Therefore, "preach the word, be urgent in season and out of season, convince, rebuke, and exhort, be unfailing in patience and in teaching... As for you, always be steady, endure suffering, do the work of an evangelist, fulfill your ministry." (2 Timothy 4:2 and 5, RSV) Should United Methodists be celebrating, with unrestrained and unqualified joy, the
decision of the 2000 General Conference on abortion? Perhaps, if the celebration lasts for
10 minutes or less. But when the brief celebration ends, let us admit that United
Methodism adopted legislation on partial-birth abortion that should be taken for granted
by any communion that is part of the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church. Therefore,
in the years to come, but beginning with this year, The United Methodist Church has much
work to do for the Gospel of Life. (PTS)  Dr. Sidney Callahan is a
psychologist and author. To the question, Do you still call yourself a feminist?, she
responded: "Oh, yes, I do. Feminism began with an analysis of the abuse of power and
the impulse to fight inequality. My going on to take a pro-life position was a natural
extension of feminism, just making it deeper." In speeches, Dr. Callahan has been
known to declare: "Women will never climb to equality and social empowerment over
mounds of dead fetuses." Graphic enough. And true enough. (Focus on the Family,
Jan. 2000)
At that point, the massive congregation assembled in New York City’s St. Patrick’s Cathedral rose to its feet and applauded for nearly two minutes. Belatedly, the Lifewatch community joins the applause.
In 1986 and 1990, Mr. Bob Casey was elected to serve as the governor of Pennsylvania. Furthermore, he was a liberal Democrat?and powerfully pro-life. How could that be? you wonder. Because he understood the mission of the Democratic Party to be helping "those in the dawn of life, those in the shadows of life, and those in the twilight of life," as Casey recalled Hubert H. Humphrey saying. (Catholic New York, 6/8/00) You might remember that, in 1992, then-Gov. Bob Casey offered to make a speech at the Democratic National Convention in New York. But Bob. Casey "was not permitted on camera for fear that his sour note on abortion would disturb the symphony of unity" at the convention (New York Times, 6/1/00, which quotes Walter Goodman from 1992). Later, in October of 1992, Bob Casey had been invited to speak at the Cooper Union School of Architecture in New York City. His speech was to be delivered in the school’s Great Hall; 132 years earlier, Abraham Lincoln had stood in the same hall and questioned the Supreme Court’s views on slavery. Unfortunately, pro-abortion demonstrators shouted down and silenced Casey?with, for example, "Murderers [that is, those who make illegal abortions necessary] have no right to speak." Therefore, he was unable to deliver the text of his speech "Can a Liberal Be Pro-Life?" (NYT, 6/3/00). While Mr. Casey was the governor of Pennsylvania, Matthew Scully wrote speeches for him. On June 1st, two days after Mr. Casey’s death, Mr. Scully had a column on Casey on the editorial page of The Wall Street Journal. Scully on Casey: "I never heard him speak a cruel word [about] anyone, but when he talked of the abortion industry, mocking its terms of ‘defective’ children and ‘terminations’ and ‘hard cases,’ it was with utter contempt. It was a language he didn’t understand, a spirit alien to everything he believed and his party once professed. Abortion, he always said, is not a question of when life begins. It is a question of when love begins. ‘No insignificant person was ever born, and no insignificant person ever dies.’" [emphasis added]
SAVE THE DATE! 2000 Is a Pivotal Year-- Interfaith Convocations and Rallies St. John’s Episcopal Church Become a sponsor. Contact us now!... Thanks, but no thanks. Lifewatch does not care to support this effort in behalf of the Culture of Death. Though it is unfortunate that The United Methodist Church remains affiliated with this pro-choice—indeed, this pro-abortion—outfit.
For example, for seven years, the "Biggest Baby Shower" has been held annually in and around Sarasota, FL. This year brought in 40-50 shopping carts full of goods that will assist three pregnancy help centers. To set up your local baby shower, all you have to do is: ask a local church or department store to host the event; advertise the event over radio stations (evangelical and others), through church bulletins and newsletters, and in newspapers; request diapers, formula, baby clothes, blankets and crib sheets, baby furniture and accessories, baby bath items, maternity clothes, booties, strollers, car seats, playpens, and high chairs; hold the event; and then transport the goods to the pregnancy center in your area. Press coverage of this yearly event has been instrumental in changing many hearts and minds on life and abortion. If you would like more details about putting together such an event, please call Cindy Wright at (941)-753-0401. Now there is some discussion about developing a "National Baby Shower." Sounds like a very good idea to us. Information on the national effort can be obtained from Allan F. Brewster/10709 Oak Drive/Hudson, FL 34669-2150.
777 Carpenter’s Way/Lakeland, FL 33801. Or you can contact her (at Rock the Boat
Ministries/P.O. Box 26177/Colorado Springs, CO 80936/(719)-572-1516) to offer her witness
before your church or group.
I wish to order: ____copies of The Right Choice ($10.00/copy); ____copies of The Church and Abortion ($5.00/copy); ____copies of Thinking Theologically about Abortion ($7.00/copy). These prices include shipping/handling. Name:____________________________________ Please enclose your check, payable to "Lifewatch," and mail to: Lifewatch/512 Florence Street/Dothan AL 36301. Extend your outreach-and ours-with a free subscription to a friend. Simply provide the information requested below. Also, your contributions-however large or small-will help continue the ministry of Lifewatch in inspiring United Methodists to love both mother and unborn child. Thank you for caring enough to act. Name:____________________________________ Please mail to: Lifewatch/512 Florence Street/Dothan AL 36301.
|
Our Mission:
|
| Lifewatch
is published by the Taskforce of United Methodists on Abortion and Sexuality,
a network of United Methodist clergy, laity, and congregations. It is sent free to interested readers. Editor, Rev. Paul T. Stallsworth: P.O. Box 177, Rose Hill NC 28458 (910)289-2449/Administrator, Mrs. Ruth Brown: 512 Florence Street, Dothan AL 3630/ (334)794-8543/E-mail: lifew@lifewatch.org Web site: http://lifewatch.org |
This page designed maintained by Rev. John Warrener, webservant.