December 2003—A quarterly news
letter for United Methodists
GUEST COLUMN I: NEEDING A
MORE CONSISTENT STAND ON ABORTION
"It has been shown conclusively that abortion, besides
killing a unique human being, does great damage to the mother."
of the following article first appeared in the Southwest Texas Conference
paper, Witness. It is by Linda J. Martin, M.D., who is a member of
Lytle United Methodist Church of Lytle, TX.
"Children are a gift from God to be welcomed and received." That is the
opening sentence of Paragraph 161K on adoption in The Book of
Discipline (2000), and it immediately follows the mushy, ambiguous,
pro-choice language of Paragraph 161J on abortion.
Is Paragraph 161K a radical, pro-life statement? Yes, it is. What a
contrast to Paragraph 161J!
The paragraph on abortion starts out well: "The beginning of life and
the ending of life are the God-given boundaries of human existence." It
then asserts that we "now have the awesome power to determine when and
even whether new individuals will be born," when, in fact, we have had
that power for millennia. The early Christians in ancient Rome fought
against abortion and infanticide.
Christians have been pro-life against the culture for 2,000 years. Only
in the last century were parts of the church convinced that abortion was
compatible with what God commands.
Underlying the language of the abortion paragraph (161J) is the
assumption that abortion presents a conflict between the best interest of
the mother and the best interest of the child. But in the vast majority of
cases, there is no such conflict. In fact, such conflicts are very rare.
Where there is a conflict between the life of the mother and the life of
the child, every effort should be made to save both.
It has been shown conclusively that abortion, besides killing a unique
human being, does great damage to the mother. The list of possible medical
complications is extensive, including severe bleeding, infertility, future
miscarriage and premature births, higher rates of breast cancer, and
death. The psychological complications of guilt, regret, depression,
suicide, drug abuse, promiscuity, and increased abuse of other children
are equally devastating. Women who suffer most from these psychological
problems are the very ones we most want to help—women in difficult
circumstances, victims of rape or incest, mothers of children with
handicaps or deformities (see David Reardon’s Aborted Women, Silent No
More). These women report the most problems after an abortion.
Carrying a child to term and giving birth in a difficult pregnancy
allow a woman to triumph in adversity, whereas abortion teaches her that
she is too weak and fragile to do the right thing, often confirming or
worsening already low self-esteem. Thus, abortion increases the very
psychological problems it purports to avoid.
The United Methodist statement on adoption (Paragraph 161K) should
guide the statement on abortion (Paragraph 161J). The value of a child is
not determined by whether he is inside or outside the womb. Both are God’s
creation. And God tells us that children are a blessing from Him (Psalm
127:3, for example).
The United Methodist Church, faithful to Jesus Christ, needs to stand
for children (born and unborn) and their mothers.
GUEST COLUMN II: LOVE AND
What follows is by The Reverend Bruce Birdsey. It was written while
Rev. Birdsey was on a Woods Fellowship at Virginia Theological Seminary in
Alexandria, VA, and it appeared as the conclusion of "The Question Answers
Itself: An Evolving Society Will Provide Fetal Rights" (The [Raleigh,
NC] News & Observer, 7/28/03).
"Human beings often love other
human beings who are incomplete or imperfect. Often, humans who cannot
care for themselves are cared for by those who love them—even when it is
About the time the June 9th Newsweek (with "Should a Fetus Have
Rights?" on the cover) arrived, I learned of the death of Peggy Cook, who
occasionally attended the [Episcopal] church where I formerly was rector.
She was born 53 years ago with Williams’ Syndrome, a rare condition that
took a succession of doctors a couple of years to diagnose. The one who
finally did so said to her mother: "I would put her away in an institution
and forget about her."
But Margaret Cook was appalled by the suggestion and rejected it. It
was not a matter of rights (hers or her daughter’s). It was a matter of
love. Human beings often love other human beings who are incomplete or
imperfect. Often, humans who cannot care for themselves are cared for by
those who love them—even when it is inconvenient.
So Peggy Cook had a life that was markedly more rich in love than would
have been the case had her mother turned her over to strangers.
And I believe Margaret Cook has had a richer life as well, despite the
infringement on her freedom by the needs of a handicapped daughter.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created
equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable
rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,"
declares our nation’s Declaration of Independence.
The liberal tradition in the United States has, over the centuries,
given a gift of inestimable value to our national consciousness: the
gradual enlargement of understanding about who is included in the category
"all men." The abolition of slavery, the extension of voting rights, laws
against discrimination on the basis of race, gender, national origin,
sexual identity—all these are profound contributions toward a more humane
polity and society.
Is a fetus less worthy of consideration than a specimen of an
endangered species—a spotted owl, say? No. Should a fetus have rights?
JOHN PAUL II: 25 YEARS
This is written on November 16, 2003. Twenty-five years ago today,
Karol Wojtyla became Pope John Paul II. And all the world—and especially
the Christian world—should be deeply grateful that he did.
John Paul II is a magnificent, teaching pope. Indeed, Father Richard
John Neuhaus has commented that "fifty years from now they’ll call him
John Paul the Great." (Catholic New York, October 2003) In his
theological instruction, the pope gives special, extended attention to the
dignity of the human person—as revealed in Jesus Christ. His
encyclicals—including "Centesimus Annus," ("The Hundredth Year," 1991), "Veritatis
Splendor" ("The Splendor of Truth," 1993), "Evangelium Vitae" ("The Gospel
of Life," 1995), and "Fides et Ratio" ("Faith and Reason," 1998)—are
landmark teaching documents for the Church in and beyond the Roman
Catholic world. Solidly grounded in Scripture and the Great Tradition,
The Catechism of the Catholic Church (1994)—initiated, developed, and
completed under the pope’s oversight—is a comprehensive summary of basic
Christianity for the whole Church. And his sermons, speeches, and writings
are always engaging and instructive. Yes, John Paul II truly teaches the
whole Church, in and beyond Rome, and the whole world.
In his international and ecumenical ministry, John Paul II’s central
concern is to elevate the human person—as one created by God, in the image
of God, for fellowship with God. This concern leads the pope to challenge
communism and politicized liberation theology, consumerism and autonomous
individualism, the culture of death and attacks on the weakest among us.
Always and everywhere, there is his constant witness for the protection of
the unborn child and mother. Needless to say, when the pope speaks, the
Church catholic and the world listen. Though agreement with his word is
not universal, still the whole Church and the whole world listen. Not
surprisingly, Cardinal Avery Dulles, the Fordham University theologian who
is also the dean of Roman Catholic theologians in the United States, noted
that "[h]e [John Paul II] made himself the number one moral leader of the
world. His voice really counts." (CNY)
In a post-modern world where everything seems open to change, in a
popular culture that promotes vice over virtue, in an academic environment
where deconstructionism runs amok, and in churches where
Biblical-ecumenical doctrine and morals are coming under increasing fire,
Pope John Paul II stands as a sure and solid sign of contradiction. He can
be relied upon to stand up, to propose the Christian truth about humanity
(including the humanity of the unborn child and mother), and to persuade
others to see and follow the light of Jesus Christ. The Lifewatch
community thanks God for the truthful and graceful ministry of John Paul
II over these twenty-five years.
Back in the early nineties, after becoming the editor of Lifewatch,
this United Methodist pastor was hesitant to quote from, or refer to, the
pope. I must admit that I feared there might be an anti-Catholic backlash,
small or large, from a few United Methodists who read the newsletter. But
as the years have passed, and as the pope’s faithful words and deeds have
come to mean so much to those of us attempting to witness for the Gospel
of Life, this editor has freely quoted the pope in these pages. And the
backlash that was once feared never materialized. As should have been
remembered from the start, United Methodists are a generously ecumenical
Now, toward the end of John Paul II’s long pontificate, the major media
continue their deathwatch. It is almost as if they long for his death.
After all, he stands for the Gospel of Life, which is a frontal challenge
to many of the deepest convictions of the most prestigious pundits. But
with quivering lip, with quietly spoken words, with unsteady hand, this
pope, afflicted with Parkinson’s disease, witnesses on. Therefore, we
United Methodists would do well to continue our "lifewatch" of his grand
But in God’s time, John Paul II will die. And when he does, we will be
able to say that, for years, his words and deeds taught us how to live
faithfully for the Gospel of Life, and in his last years, his words and
deeds taught us how to die for the Gospel of Life.
During his life and after his death, we United Methodists in the
Lifewatch community can and will joyfully thank God for the life, thought,
and ministry of John Paul II. (PTS)
ON REMAINING UNITED METHODIST
"The official confirmation
and consecration of Bp. Robinson kicked up discussion of the
possibility of schism in the Episcopal Church and beyond. And indeed
This summer the General Convention of the Episcopal Church confirmed V.
Gene Robinson as the bishop of its New Hampshire diocese. The House of
Deputies, made up of clergy and laity, approved this action by a 2-1
margin, and the House of Bishops voted approval 62-43. This was
nationally, indeed internationally, newsworthy because Bishop Robinson is
open about his homosexual lifestyle and union. The Archbishop of
Canterbury responded to this confirmation in the Episcopal Church by
calling a special meeting of Anglican primates held in October.
The official confirmation and consecration of Bp. Robinson kicked up
discussion of the possibility of schism in the Episcopal Church and
beyond. And indeed it should.
This event causes United Methodists to pose similarly unpleasant
questions. For example, what if The United Methodist Church changes its
current teaching on homosexuality? What will United Methodist clergy,
laity, and congregations, dedicated to the apostolic faith of the Church,
do if General Conference 2004 changes our teaching on homosexuality? These
are questions that must be faced in the Lifewatch community and beyond.
These are questions that are even now faced with regard to other
issues. Every so often Lifewatch receives a letter from one who announces
that he or she has left The United Methodist Church, for another
ecclesiastical household, because of discontent over the denomination’s
long-standing, pro-choice position on abortion. That is understandable.
Very understandable. After all, for over thirty years, United Methodism
has been officially pro-choice and has allowed denominational institutions
to belong to the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice, a
pro-abortion political lobby. In addition, our Council of Bishops has
remained silent while millions and millions of unborn children have been
eliminated and their mothers maimed in countless ways. That is cause for
great angst, alarm, and anger.
Several months before the confirmation of Bp. Robinson, "Bonhoeffer"—a
new documentary film by Martin Doblmeier on the life, ministry, and death
of Dietrich Bonhoeffer—was released. In a powerful way, this documentary
tells the story of Bonhoeffer standing up, on the sturdy foundation of the
Church’s faith, to oppose the Nazi tide as it corrupted the German
churches and degraded German society. (This is a wonderful documentary to
show in your church and community. For more information, simply go to
"Bonhoeffer" is an illustration of the virtue of Christian courage, the
courage to oppose what has gone wrong in church and society. For years
Bonhoeffer the man found himself drawn, time and again, to engage in the
German church struggle and in the Christian witness against the Third
Reich. That it to say, Bonhoeffer did not depart a pathologically sickened
nation for greener pastures. To be sure, he was tempted to remain in New
York and London, but he did not. (Here it should be firmly declared that
Bonhoeffer’s participation in the plot to assassinate Hitler does not in
any way morally legitimate the very few extremists who attack abortion
doctors and facilities. The two situations are starkly different.)
It can be argued that the courage of Dietrich Bonhoeffer is a reminder
that our relationship with the Church is covenantal, not contractual, and
covenantal in a baptismal way. In response to the baptismal grace of God,
which incorporates us into the Church, we promise "faithfully to
participate in the ministries of the church by our prayers, our presence,
our gifts, and our service, that in everything God may be glorified
through Jesus Christ." (And through the Sacrament of Holy Communion, we
are regularly renewed in the baptismal covenant.) Here, please permit
bluntness: our promise to be faithful does not depend on The United
Methodist Church’s faithfulness. If it did, we would be free to depart
from United Methodism when the church falls into doctrinal or moral error.
Rather, our promise to the God of the covenant demands our faithfulness,
no matter what degree of faithfulness (or unfaithful-ness) is found in the
The covenantal faithfulness of Dietrich Bonhoeffer illustrates that the
faithful act on behalf of the Gospel, on behalf of Jesus Christ, on behalf
of "the least of these" (Matthew 25). Often that means staying put in a
difficult situation and being a witness for the truth of the Church’s
faith. Again, that is based on the covenant into which we have been so
graciously and divinely received by baptism.
Some laity, clergy, and congregations will, at various times and for
various reasons, decide to depart from The United Methodist Church for
another church. Often, their reasoning is understandable. However, this
United Methodist pastor believes that faithfulness to Jesus Christ,
including the Church (the Body of Jesus Christ), requires the more
difficult road: staying put and offering witness to the Church’s faith.
POLITICAL HISTORY AND ABORTION
"It is no secret that many
Democrats of our day, particularly those on the national stage, are
(or perhaps even pro-abortion). How they reached that position is
John T. McGreevy is a historian at Notre Dame. His most recent book is
Catholicism and American Freedom (Norton). McGreevy’s book is
reviewed, at some length, by Richard John Neuhaus in First Things
(August/September 2003). The Neuhaus review of the McGreevy book brings
out some history that will surprise many.
It is no secret that many Democrats of our day, particularly those on
the national stage, are decidedly pro-choice (or perhaps even
pro-abortion). How they reached that position is quite interesting.
First, it should be remembered that most American Catholics became
Democrats when, before the Civil War, the Republican Party replaced the
Whig Party and received the anti-Catholic American Party into its
political fold. That is, since Republicans were understood to be
hospitable to anti-Catholics, most Catholics became Democrats. Catholics,
in the main, continued to be Democrats for generations.
Then came the 1960s and the political push for liberalized abortion
law. Neuhaus picks up the story there: "Against the advocacy for
liberalized abortion law in the 1960s, Catholics stood alone. Evangelical
Protestants, today so prominent in the pro-life movement, were then on the
other side. When the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision came down from the
Supreme Court, the Southern Baptist Convention hailed it as a victory for
‘religious freedom’ against Catholic efforts to ‘impose’ their doctrine on
"It may be hard to remember now, but McGreevy is surely right in saying
that ‘well into the 1960s the Democratic Party arguably stood to the right
of the Republicans on issues of sexual morality.’ The party of big
business, what came to be called country club Republicanism, stood
sniffingly aloof from moral and social questions. But in 1972, the
Democrat George McGovern could choose the staunchly pro-life Thomas
Eagleton as his running mate, and when Eagleton was forced to drop out, he
replaced him with Sargent Shriver, also pro-life. In the early 1970s, the
number of prominent anti-abortion Democrats was striking. For example,
Maine Senator Edmund Muskie, Speaker of the House Tip O’Neill, and Senator
Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts, who wrote of his ‘personal feeling that
the legalization of abortion on demand is not in accordance with the value
which our civilization places on human life.’ Kennedy hoped his generation
would be remembered as ‘one which cared about human beings enough to halt
the practice of war, to provide a decent living for every family, and to
fulfill its responsibility to its children from the moment of conception.’
"All of that would soon change, and nobody played a larger part in the
change than Jesuit law professor and, later, Massachusetts Congressman
Robert Drinan. In the 1960s, Drinan proposed ‘that Catholics simply
abstain from the abortion debate, since to condone any abortion, even for
the health of the mother, meant Catholics would be guilty of regulating,
and implicitly approving, an abhorrent practice.’ It was a disingenuous
proposal, and Drinan would later become a reliable supporter of the
abortion license, supplying Catholic politicians with a moral cover for
their switch to a pro-choice stance." With that moral cover in place, the
party of the Democrats welcomed radical feminism into its fold and secured
its pro-choice/pro-abortion position.
"In the early 1980s Mario Cuomo, Governor of New York, was probably the
most popular Democratic politician in the country, and, with the aid of
Fr. Richard McBrien of Notre Dame, he offered an apparently sophisticated
argument for the ‘personally opposed, but...’ position of Catholic
Like we said, it is a surprising political history. And this political
history played a part in leading Methodism to take a pro-choice turn. For
with key Catholic Democrats and the largest Protestant denominations
taking the pro-choice side, United Methodism was content to swim with the
But the surprises have not ended. For as American society becomes
increasingly pro-life, as evangelical Protestants swing strongly in the
pro-life direction, and as Protestants and Catholics are showing forth the
fruits of ecumenical labor, The United Methodist Church seems poised for a
change of heart and mind on the matter of abortion. At least that is the
hope and prayer of Lifewatch. (PTS)
"…[W]e United Methodists often
act as if we believe that hurting someone’s feelings is one of the
most immoral deeds in the world. With that constraint in mind, we
often dance around and avoid challenging subjects, like life and
abortion, in our public presentations and personal conversations."
YOU SHOULD KNOW THAT
Lifewatch is still in need of a new Administrator. You will recall that
this position involves an average of 30 hours per week and pays a small,
monthly stipend. If you are interested, please send your resume to: Rev.
Paul T. Stallsworth/111 Hodges Street/Morehead City, NC 28557. And thanks
for your consideration.
Because of miscommunication in the publication process, the September 2003
issue of Lifewatch contained a couple of errors. In the article
entitled "The Evolution of Our Social Principle on Abortion," and in the
paragraph which begins with "Birth and Death,"  should
immediately follow , and  should immediately follow . Sorry for
Newscope (10/10/03) and United Methodist News Service report that
Bishop Melvin Talbert, a retired United Methodist bishop who is the chief
ecumenical officer of our Council of Bishops, will soon become the interim
general secretary of the General Commission on Christian Unity and
Interreligious Concerns. The Lifewatch community hopes and prays that, in
his new assignment, Bp. Talbert might wisely downplay his outspoken
pro-choice advocacy. This could and should be done for the sake of
ecumenical engagement with evangelical Protestants, the Orthodox, and
Roman Catholics. Better yet, perhaps serious moral engagements with these
brothers and sisters in Christ might well open Bp. Talbert to the truth of
the Gospel of Life. Or so let us hope and pray.
Now and then Lifewatch has offered a critique of the work of the
Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice (RCRC). For example, the March
2003 issue contained a model resolution which calls for The United
Methodist Church to withdraw from RCRC, and the June 2003 issue included
an extended review of Holy Abortion? A Theological Critique of the
Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice (Wipf and Stock, 2003) by
Michael J. Gorman and Ann Loar Brooks. Though certainly critical, these
critiques have attempted to be careful, precise, and based on reasoned
argument and evidence. It is important to note that, to date, neither RCRC
nor its advocates have responded to these critiques. Again, in the face of
reasoned criticism, RCRC has remained silent. Why? We would not presume to
answer that question. But we do know that, in the realm of public
discourse and debate, when reasonable critiques are not answered, they
stand. That said, we would welcome responses from RCRC and would engage
them in a way that would strive to serve the Gospel of Life.
Again and again, Lifewatch has urged United Methodists toward "speaking
the truth in love" (Ephesians 4:16) about the Gospel of Life. That is,
neither a ruthless presentation of the truth nor a spineless
sentimentality devoid of truth will do. In addressing the matter of life
and abortion, we know that both truth and love are required by the God
whose Son is Truth, by the Triune God who is love.
That said, preaching and teaching about abortion in The United
Methodist Church remains a difficult task. It is difficult, in large part,
because we United Methodists often act as if we believe that hurting
someone’s feelings is one of the most immoral deeds in the world. With
that constraint in mind, we often dance around and avoid challenging
subjects, like life and abortion, in our public presentations and personal
conversations. To be sure, it must be granted that no true Christian aims
to upset or hurt other people.
However, it might be wise to consider the consequences of consistently
avoiding emotional distress to others. In our life together as Christians,
this avoidance leads to the avoidance of serious moral conversation. For
in avoiding emotional upset, one avoids challenging moral matters
altogether. Therefore, feelings rule. Indeed, feelings rule out of order
any moral discourse that would cause discomfort.
Putting a premium on emotion is part of the burden of living in a
society where the therapeutic has triumphed. But should we Christians give
in to "the triumph of the therapeutic" (Philip Rieff)? We think not.
Rather, we Christians, recognizing the Lordship of Jesus Christ, should
concern ourselves with truth and love. Loving truth and truthful love,
regarding life and abortion, might cause some emotional distress at times.
But by the grace of God, such distress just might be a first step along
the way toward conversion to the Gospel of Life.
"[T]he directors of the Women’s Division…have
voted to add their name and their money ($5,000 to be exact) to ‘Save
Women’s Lives: March for Freedom of Choice.’"
Every once in a while, we are jolted into remembering exactly why
Lifewatch exists. The October 31st issue of Newscope carries such a
jolt. Under the title "Women’s Division Cosponsors Abortion Rights March,"
Newscope, with the help of the United Methodist News Service,
reports that the directors of the Women’s Division (of the General Board
of Global Ministries) have voted to add their name and their money ($5,000
to be exact) to "Save Women’s Lives: March for Freedom of Choice." This
will be a pro-choice march on Washington, DC—now with official United
Methodist participation—on April 25, 2004. According to Newscope,
20 Women’s Division delegates will attend, and United Methodist Women from
around the DC area will be invited to participate. The report went on:
"Mary Gates, a division director who has worked with the Religious
Coalition [for] Reproductive Choice [RCRC], told other directors, ‘We do
not promote abortions in any way... For those who choose it, we want them
to have safe options.’ The Women’s Division is a member of RCRC."
First of all, just for the record, be informed that RCRC is a
pro-abortion, political lobby. Understanding abortion as a good and then
politically working to protect its availability, RCRC promotes abortion.
(See Holy Abortion? A Theological Critique of the Religious Coalition
for Reproductive Choice, [Wipf and Stock, 2003], by Michael J. Gorman
and Ann Loar Brooks.)
Will this pro-choice march, which the Women’s Division of The United
Methodist Church has now officially joined, politically support the
abortion choice in any and all circumstances—not just when there are
"tragic conflicts of life with life that may justify abortion," as our
Book of Discipline (Par. 161J) states? Will this march, unlike The
United Methodist Church, support abortion "as an acceptable means of birth
control" (BOD)? Will this march, unlike The United Methodist
Church, support abortion "as a means of gender selection" (BOD)?
Will this march, unlike The United Methodist Church, unqualifiedly support
partial-birth abortion (BOD)? We presume that Yes is the answer to
all the above questions.
It makes no ecclesiastical, doctrinal, theological, moral, or common
sense for the Women’s Division to participate in this march on Washington.
By participating in this march, the name of The United Methodist Church is
politically used, and our admittedly flawed teaching on abortion is
John Paul II’s most recent encyclical, "Ecclesia de Eucharista" ("Church
of the Eucharist"), is a grand essay on the grace and glory of Holy
Communion. Here are two samples of the encyclical that concern Holy
Communion and pro-life ministry: "Many problems darken the horizon of our
time. We need but think of the urgent need to work for peace, to base
relationships between peoples on solid premises of justice and solidarity,
and to defend human life from conception to its natural end. And what
should we say of the thousand inconsistencies of a ‘globalized’ world
where the weakest, the most powerless, and the poorest appear to have so
little hope[?] It is in this world that Christian hope must shine forth!
For this reason too, the Lord wished to remain with us in the eucharist,
making his presence in meal and sacrifice the promise of a humanity
renewed by his love. Significantly, in their account of the Last Supper,
the synoptics recount the institution of the eucharist, while the Gospel
of John relates, as a way of bringing out its profound meaning, the
account of the ‘washing of the feet,’ in which Jesus appears as the
teacher of communion and of service (cf. Jn. 13:1-20). The apostle Paul,
for his part, says that it is ‘unworthy’ of a Christian community to
partake of the Lord’s Supper amid division and indifference toward the
poor (cf. 1 Cor. 11:17-22, 27-34)." (20)
"In the humble signs of bread and wine changed
into his body and blood, Christ walks beside us as our strength and
our food for the journey…"
"In the humble signs of bread and wine changed into his body and blood,
Christ walks beside us as our strength and our food for the journey, and
he enables us to become for everyone witnesses of hope. If in the presence
of this mystery, reason experiences its limits, the heart, enlightened by
the grace of the Holy Spirit, clearly sees the response that is demanded
and bows low in adoration and unbounded love." (62)
YOU AND YOUR CHURCH GROUP ARE
at The United Methodist Building
INVITED TO ATTEND
100 Maryland Avenue, NE
January 22, 2004 (Thursday)
THE ANNUAL LIFEWATCH
SERVICE OF WORSHIP
The Reverend Dr. Leicester Longden
Associate Professor of Evangelism and Discipleship
University of Dubuque Theological Seminary
THE ANNUAL LIFEWATCH
HOPE TO SEE YOU THERE!
[For easier admission to The United Methodist Building
on January 22nd, bring this issue of Lifewatch to the door.]
JOIN US ON THE FIRST TUESDAY OF EACH MONTH IN PRAYING AND FASTING FOR
LIFEWATCH’S CONTINUING MINISTRY.
Out of obedience to Jesus Christ, the Taskforce of
United Methodists on Abortion and Sexuality (TUMAS) "will work to create
in church and society esteem for human life at its most vulnerable,
specifically for the unborn child and for the woman who contemplates
abortion." Therefore, TUMAS’s first goal is "to win the hearts and minds
of United Methodists, to engage in abortion-prevention through
theological, pastoral, and social emphases that support human life."
|Lifewatch is published
by the Taskforce of United Methodists on Abortion and Sexuality, a network
of United Methodist clergy, laity, and churches. It is sent, free of
charge, to interested readers. Editor, Rev. Paul T. Stallsworth: 111 Hodges
Street, Morehead City NC 28557 (252)726-2175.
Publicity and Outreach Coordinator, Mrs. Cindy Evans: 1564 Skyview Drive/Holts Summitt, MO 65043 (573)896-9680.
Administrator, Mrs. Ruth Brown: 512 Florence Street,
Dothan AL 36301 (334)794-8543/E-mail:
firstname.lastname@example.org Web site:
Lifewatch is published by the Taskforce of United Methodists on
Abortion and Sexuality, a non-profit 501(c)3 organization.