A fresh encounter with Scripture Shane Raynor talks to Will Willimon about The Wesley Study Bible.
The Wesley Study Bible at your local church Bishop Will Willimon illustrates how every church can use this new resource.
The heartcries of women in our pews Liza Kittle writes about the unique spiritual challenges of women.
Wesley and Predestination Les Longden wrestles with a central tenent of Calvinist theology.
Children's ministry helps make disciples Boyce Bowdon reports on the unique outreaches at Chapel Hill UM Church.
Next Generation What We Say and What We Hear
Renew Women’s Network What House Will You Build Me?
The Great Commission A Leading Question
From the Heart Cultivating His Presence
News
Renfroe accepts Good News presidency upon
Heidinger retirement
For the cause of Christ: A statement from Rob
Renfroe
Korean Methodist church built on prayer
Asbury Seminary selects Tennent as new leader
Commentary: Amendments deserve debate
News Analysis
Has GBCS been faithful to the provisions of
trust document?
President Barack Obama’s rescinding of the Mexico City Policy—the policy that had banned U.S. taxpayer dollars from funding abortions in overseas non-governmental organizations (NGOs)—has caused quite a reaction in both the pro-life and pro-choice communities. Linda Bales, director of the Louise & Hugh Moore Population Project at the UM General Board of Church and Society, has written pointedly against the policy and is now praising the Obama reversal (see GBCS’ Faith In Action newsletter for Feb. 2, 2009 — http://tinyurl.com/gbcs-abortion-advocacy).
Among Ms. Bales’ longstanding criticisms is her allegation that the Mexico City Policy unfairly restricts funding to an NGO that offers reproductive services even if that NGO pays for abortions “with its own money.” But this would seem to be a distinction without a difference. If financial aid is given to an organization that performs abortions, then that money is essentially underwriting abortions, regardless of any accounting gymnastics that may be offered as a legitimizing factor. If the GBCS had worked harder to uncouple abortion from “reproductive services” then perhaps her concerns could have been lessened.
As a consequence of the Mexico City Policy reversal, U.S. taxpayer funding has also been restored to the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA). In applauding this development, Ms. Bales stated flatly that “The UNFPA does not provide abortion services as some of its critics have charged.”
But the veracity of that statement is challenged by a well-documented 2001 study, recorded in Congressional testimony, by the pro-life Population Research Institute (PRI). An on-site PRI investigation in Sihui County, China, found that the UNFPA worked in support of Chinese reproductive policies, which included both mandatory abortion and sterilization as family planning strategies. Official policy of the United Methodist Church rejects abortion as a method of family planning.
On more than one occasion Ms. Bales has maintained that a “double standard” has existed with respect to U.S. domestic policy not being subject to Mexico City Policy restrictions. One could reasonably argue that, especially in economically difficult times, hard-earned taxpayer money should not be sent overseas for reproductive services; and if sent at all, it should certainly not fund procedures (such as abortion) which many taxpayers find morally objectionable.
Current domestic U.S. law, with some variation depending upon the state, forbids taxpayer funding of medically unnecessary abortions. With the lifting of the Mexico City Policy, one could argue that there are now fewer restrictions on U.S. abortion funding internationally than domestically!
It is also worth considering that most of the developing world has abortion laws that are stricter than those of the United States. Sending U.S. money to abortion-advocacy groups working to make foreign abortion laws more like those in America is—in the words of a spokesman for C-FAM, the Catholic Family and Human Rights Initiative—“the worst kind of cultural imperialism.”
By Mark P. Smith, an optometrist from Pine Mountain, Georgia. He is an active member of Pine Mountain First United Methodist Church. Dr. Smith has participated in several medical mission trips with United Methodist-affiliated groups to Jamaica and Honduras.
General Conference 2008 approved a just and important change to the Constitution of the United Methodist Church. It has extended to some local pastors and provisional clergy members the right to vote for General and Jurisdictional Conference delegates (see text box). However, since this is a Constitutional change it still requires two-thirds support of the aggregate total of all the annual conferences’ delegates in order to be ratified.
This is a just change for a number of reasons. Currently, local pastors and provisional clergy members are in a state of limbo when it comes to having their voices heard during the election of General and Jurisdictional Conference delegates. They are not considered laity, so they cannot vote for lay delegates. But neither are they considered full clergy members, so they cannot vote for clergy delegates, either. In short, they have no representation at the General and Jurisdictional Conferences even though they are members of the United Methodist Church and faithfully serve local congregations throughout the connection.
Local pastors now compose 15 percent of all clergy in the UM Church, and their numbers have grown by 31 percent since 2000. Many serve multi-point charges, so that over 30 percent of the approximately 33,500 UM congregations in the United States are now led by a local pastor. It is vitally important that their voices be heard as the church moves forward.
We entrust these local pastors and provisional members to lead local churches, celebrate the sacraments, counsel confirmands, and preside at weddings and funerals. Surely, they can also be trusted with a ballot for General and Jurisdictional Conference delegates.
There will be some who will maintain that this change should not be ratified. They will argue that voting for General and Jurisdictional Conference delegates should only be the privilege of ordained elders who have formal seminary educations and have entered into local parish ministry via the long and arduous ordination process. But this is faulty logic.
Representation in the church should not be based on years of education and a particular process an individual has completed. Granting local pastors and provisional members the right to vote is not an attempt to detract from the status of an elder. Rather, it is a simple matter of justice. Individuals who are obviously committed to the Church’s mission should be granted the right to vote for delegates who will represent them and their parishioners among the highest decision-making bodies in the Church.
Others may argue that while they are not necessarily opposed to the change, perhaps it would be wiser to think about it some more, ormaybe have a commission study a variety of different ways local pastors and provisional members can be represented. This has already taken place. This matter, unlike some of the other proposed constitutional amendments, has been carefully vetted, studied by a variety of groups over several years, and it has been debated at a number of General Conferences.
Indeed, at General Conference 2008 the question was thoroughly discussed, compromises were hammered out, the petition was amended and serious and thoughtful debate occurred in the legislative committee and during a plenary session. This matter has been properly vetted and it is now time to give local pastors and provisional clergy members the opportunity to vote for General and Jurisdictional Conference delegates.
By Walter B. Fenton, Chief Operating Officer of Good News.
Click here to send your response plus the title of this article to us at Good News.