Posted on 07/19/2013 2:58:02 PM PDT by NYer
Ms. Julie Taylor works in the office of Children, Youth and Family Advocacy of the United Methodist Women, and Ms. Amee Paparella is the new Director and Organizer for Women’s Advocacy at the General Board of church and Society of The United Methodist Church. On January 18, they posted their article, “Clearly More to Be Done,” on the General Board of Church and Society website.
Co-written, their article serves as their personal response to the 40th anniversary of Roe v. Wade. But given their positions in denominational agencies, their article also functions like an official response of The United Methodist Church to Roe’s anniversary.
The United Methodist Reporter suggests as much by publishing “Clearly more to Be Done” in its February 8th issue. (The Reporter is to be heartily commended for also carrying, in the same issue, a thoughtful critique of their article by Rev. Teddy Ray.)
Unfortunately, the article by Ms. Taylor and Ms. Paparella does not accurately represent what The United Methodist church teaches about life and abortion. In fact, the article distorts United Methodist teaching on this crucial matter.
This is how “Clearly more to Be Done” distorts United Methodist teaching on life and abortion.
As is well known, The United Methodist Church’s official teaching on life and abortion is found in Paragraph 161J (pp. 112-114) of The Book of Discipline (2012). Paragraph 161J indeed contains the one sentence from the Discipline that the Taylor-Paparella article quotes:
“We recognize tragic conflicts of life with life that may justify abortion, and in such cases we support the legal option of abortion under proper medical procedures by certified medical providers.”
Relying heavily on that one sentence from Paragraph 161J, the article makes its case that there is “clearly more to be done” to realize “reproductive justice” in American society and throughout the world.
However, Paragraph 161J says much more about life and abortion than the one sentence quoted above.
First, Paragraph 161J speaks explicitly about the little one carried by the mother. It refers to “the sanctity of unborn human life” and to “the unborn child.” In contrast, the article under review does not mention, even once, the unborn child. Given the fact over 55,000,000 unborn children have been aborted, since Roe v. Wade was handed down by the United States Supreme Court in 1973, that is a blatantly obvious oversight. That oversight distorts United Methodist teaching.
Second, Paragraph 161J, in one degree or another, stands against birth-control abortions, gender-section abortions, eugenic abortions, and partial-birth abortions. It also stands in favor of parental notification, “diminishing high abortion rates,” and aiding ministries that “help women find feasible alternatives to abortion.” The article under consideration overlooks these claims of Paragraph 161J, which aim to protect the unborn child and mother from abortion. Therefore, in a second way, this article distorts United Methodist teaching.
The article under critique is dedicated to seeking “reproductive justice” for women. All United Methodists are for justice for women. However, true justice for women is never reached by neglecting or supporting massive, ruthlessly violent injustices against unborn children, half of whom are little women. True justice for women does not turn pregnant women over to an abortion industry that frequently harms them.
Roe v. Wade is one of the most morally problematic, legally contested, and societally unsettling United States Supreme Court decisions in American history. On its 40th anniversary, The United Methodist Church deserved a more thoughtful response, that more accurately reflects denominational teaching on life and abortion, than “Clearly more to Be Done.
LifeNews Note: Rev. Stallsworth is the editor of “Lifewatch” a pro-life Methodist publication. This originally appeared at NRL News Today.
My experience says otherwise.
>>if they abortion they shouldnt be called Christian
From the UMC Book of Discipline:
¶ 161 J) Abortion—The beginning of life and the ending of life are the God-given boundaries of human existence. While individuals have always had some degree of control over when they would die, they now have the awesome power to determine when and even whether new individuals will be born. Our belief in the sanctity of unborn human life makes us reluctant to approve abortion.
But we are equally bound to respect the sacredness of the life and well-being of the mother and the unborn child.
We recognize tragic conflicts of life with life that may justify abortion, and in such cases we support the legal option of abortion under proper medical procedures by certified medical providers. We support parental, guardian, or other responsible adult notification and consent before abortions can be performed on girls who have not yet reached the age of legal adulthood. We cannot affirm abortion as an acceptable means of birth control, and we unconditionally reject it as a means of gender selection or eugenics (see Resolution 3184).
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. This procedure shall be performed only by certified medical providers. Before providing their services, abortion providers should be required to offer women the option of anesthesia.
We call all Christians to a searching and prayerful inquiry into the sorts of conditions that may cause them to consider abortion. We entrust God to provide guidance, wisdom, and discernment to those facing an unintended pregnancy.
The Church shall offer ministries to reduce unintended pregnancies. We commit our Church to continue to provide nurturing ministries to those who terminate a pregnancy, to those in the midst of a crisis pregnancy, and to those who give birth.
We mourn and are committed to promoting the diminishment of high abortion rates. The Church shall encourage ministries to reduce unintended pregnancies such as comprehensive, age-appropriate sexuality education, advocacy in regard to contraception, and support of initiatives that enhance the quality of life for all women and girls around the globe.
Young adult women disproportionately face situations in which they feel that they have no choice due to financial, educational, relational, or other circumstances beyond their control. The Church and its local congregations and campus ministries should be in the forefront of supporting existing ministries and developing new ministries that help such women in their communities. They should also support those crisis pregnancy centers and pregnancy resource centers that compassionately help women explore all options related to unplanned pregnancy. We particularly encourage the Church, the government, and social service agencies to support and facilitate the option of adoption. (See ¶ 161L.) We affirm and encourage the Church to assist the ministry of crisis pregnancy centers and pregnancy resource centers that compassionately help women find feasible alternatives to abortion.
Governmental laws and regulations do not provide all the guidance required by the informed Christian conscience. Therefore, a decision concerning abortion should be made only after thoughtful and prayerful consideration by the parties involved, with medical, family, pastoral, and other appropriate counsel.
My experience or your experience has nothing to do with it. The bishops wanted a new organization for the denomination. They didn’t get it. Why? Because they don’t have the authority.
Many pushed to have a presiding bishop created for the denomination. They didn’t get it. Why? Because they don’t have the authority.
It is a matter of what our rules say. They say that there is only one authority and that is the every 4 year General Conference.
I have been a fully ordained elder in the UMC since 1985, and prior to that an ordained deacon and probationary member and prior to that a licensed local pastor. My 30+ years of experience says that bishop’s power is only within their own conference. Within their own geographic region they call the shots. Beyond that they are well-heeled discussion groups.
Could all of the bishops get together and arbitrarily agree to, say, require everyone to wear red the first day of their annual conferences?
Yes.
But, (1) it still wouldn’t be denominational policy, and (2) they couldn’t enforce it.
I have been a fully ordained elder since 1972. I resigned from the denomination about the time you started, in 1985. Had my fill of the Bishop’s authority.
Then you know what I’m saying is accurate.
No. We are in complete disagreement. The cowardice of the ordained ministry in their attitude toward the Bishop and his DS’s is notorious. The Council of Bishops runs roughshod over local Conferences with one or two minor exceptions where a uniquely Biblical bishop is in conflict with the Council. The Council is not merely a coffee klatch. No bishop would agree with that assessment. I agree it takes a slave mentality to accede to autocratic power. Such, however, is the case.
I hear you. So sad.
“I believe that Scripture is against him in that the remnant was within the Church and not outside it.” — John Stott, responding to Martin Lloyd-Jones’ call for evangelicals to leave the Church of England
John Stott sums up the position of those of us who are evangelical and orthodox within the United Methodist Church pretty well.
The church in scripture is not the church of incorporated denominationalism. The church as the Body of Christ has little if anything to do with the political bodies we know as institutional churches. I remain in the Body of Christ while choosing to separate myself from the church of my fathers which has become apostasy.
Referencing the COE as justification for remaining UMC is a queer juxposition of principles, particularly in light of Methodism’s failure to remain Episcopal Church of England.
You assume that Methodist doctrine has ‘become apostasy’. To separate yourself from all nonbelievers and apostates within the Church Militant, you would have to abandon any visible organization.
Your use of the words “cowardice” and “slave mentality” both suggest that the bishop’s power is what I say, and that those who bow and scrape to them in hopes of assignment to a larger church with larger salary, actually constitute their real power. Again, though, that is intra-conference and not inter-conference.
Therefore, their power is WITHIN their own conferences.
As I’ve stated, they have no power to change the law of the denomination. That is set only by the every 4 year general conference.
In political terms we are looking at a confederacy and not at a federal system.
I am not debating the Book of Discipline. It is what it is and it is the law of the church. However, the COB works daily along with all the various Super Commissions and Agencies to affect the direction of the global body. As with any bureaucracy they are the real power.
Officials who work daily to redirect world Methodism away from the Book of Discipline and the spasms of the General Conference are not an aberration to be ignored. They have the blessing of the Council of Bishops who dictate policy to presiding Bishops in local conferences. That is the nature of the beast.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.