Prepared by: Janice Shaw Crouse, Ph.D.

Section I:  Petitions about Sexual and Gender Issues:  

1.     Biblical Language—Revision of Petition #321

Analysis of Revised Petition #321: Biblical Language

Summary:  In an effort to promote diversity and inclusiveness, this petition advocates using both masculine and feminine words, images and metaphors for God and more positive metaphors for color, darkness, ability and age. Further, the petition recommends that all materials reflect diverse metaphors as well as diverse and inclusive language.

Most United Methodists are supportive of individual and corporate efforts to bring respect and dignity to all human beings.  Further, people in our churches endorse respect for women and firmly believe that the Bible is the most effective force in history in lifting up women to higher levels of respect, dignity and freedom in spite of its imperfect outworking in Christian institutions (Christian Women’s Declaration, 1995). The transforming power of Jesus Christ is available to all, –– both male and female –– therefore, the body of Christ is inherently diverse and inclusive.

It is important to note that while sexuality is not ascribed to God, His self-revelation in Scripture is masculine in gender. Likewise, the Son and Holy Spirit are referred to by masculine designations. Therefore, the Christian community embraces this disclosure of God as Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

The scriptures referenced in the Women’s Division petition refer to God through the use of similes, not metaphors as claimed.  There are almost none, if any, feminine metaphors for God in Scripture.  Metaphors such as “God is love”, “God is light”, describe the essence of God.  God is addressed in Scripture as “Father.”  Indeed, Jesus addressed Him as “Father” and instructed His followers to do so.  When God is given feminine attributes in Scripture, they are always in the form of a simile, i.e., “God is like a mother eagle,” “…as a mother hen gathers her brood.”

Talking Points: 

·        Christians generally make a distinction between the language of everyday communication and conversation where sensitivity to contemporary concerns is important—and the words of liturgy, hymns and biblical texts where faithfulness to the original texts is paramount. The language, metaphors and images of communication among Christians ought to be respectful of the diversity of human beings, but the liturgy of the church and the translation of biblical texts ought to adhere to the original language and faithfully reflect the original texts.

·        The universality of the sacred texts cannot be “improved upon” nor should those texts be “corrected” to reflect passing styles and transitory connotations.  The artistic element of language is central to the beauty and meaning of some aspects of liturgy and scriptural texts. At no point should the “soul” of passages be sacrificed to political correctness.

·        Language nuances and interpretations can both obscure and reveal theological truths; therefore it is important to carefully weigh political accommodation against theological verities and the potential for erosion of doctrinal principles that are central to the faith.

·        Most members of our church support efforts to make language more inclusive in general conversation and in public arenas. Where other words can be used appropriately, alternatives to male designation ought to be employed –– for instance, laity rather than layman, children instead of sons, worker instead of workman, seeking a leader for the job rather than a “man” for the job.

·        A recommended amendment to this petition might be as follows:  Delete “Whereas” #2, #3 and #4 from this petition and change the reference in the original line 2, “metaphorical” to “figurative.” Delete “including masculine/feminine metaphors for God” entirely.  In addition, “Be it further resolved,” line 2 needs to be changed from “metaphors” to “figures of speech.”

For additional material on Biblical Language, visit the RENEW Network web site at www.renewnetwork.org.
 

2.     Disciplinary Change: To the Legislative Committee

Analysis of the Disciplinary Change: To the Legislative Committee, Related to  Teen Sexuality and Suicide

Summary:  This Disciplinary change overrides the restriction against funding homosexual groups or efforts to promote homosexuality.  This change provides a way around the Disciplinary restriction by allowing funding in response to HIV and the “increasing rate of teen suicide.”  As noted below, valid studies do not support the link this petition claims between teen suicide and homosexuality.  This disciplinary change advocates for funding that would ultimately promote a lifestyle among teens that is incompatible with The Book of Discipline and the teaching of Scripture.

The Disciplinary change is based on the alleged “fact” that teens struggling with sexual identity are two to three times more likely to attempt suicide than are other youth.  No other reasons for teen suicide are mentioned.  Yet teen suicide reports from the major psychological and pediatric associations do not even mention sexual identity or mention it near the bottom of a long list of other risk factors.  Other teen suicide factors – family breakup through divorce, alcohol or drug abuse, and family dysfunction – are mentioned in all the major health organization publications as the main factors in teen suicide. 

Talking Points: 

·        The American Psychiatric Association identified the strong risk factors for teen suicide as: depression, alcohol or drug abuse and aggressive, disruptive behaviors.  They also mentioned family loss and instability and unplanned pregnancy.  Suicidal teens, they reported, feel alone, hopeless and rejected and are especially vulnerable when they have experienced a loss, humiliation or trauma, such as poor grade, breakup with boyfriend or girlfriend, argument with parents, parental discord, separation or divorce.  “Fifty-three percent of young people who commit suicide abuse substances.”

·        The National Mental Health Association identifies feelings of anger and resentment and the inability to see beyond a temporary situation. They point out that since 1960, suicide rates for teens have tripled – making it the third leading cause of adolescent death and the second cause among college students.

·        KidsHealth quotes Dr. David Sheslow, a pediatric psychologist, who identifies drugs and alcohol as leading causes of suicide in teens.  Further, KidsHealth writes, “A teen with an adequate support network of friends, family, religious affiliations, peer groups or extracurricular activities may have an outlet to deal with his everyday frustrations.  A teen without an adequate support network may feel disconnected and isolated from his family and peer groups.  It’s these teens who are at increased risk for suicide.”

·        Other problems identified by KidsHealth are: divorce, alcoholism of a family member, domestic violence, physical and sexual abuse, repeated failures at school, substance abuse, self-destructive behavior.

·        The American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry publishes a fact sheet about teen suicide.  Causes they list?  Stress, confusion, self-doubt, pressure to succeed, financial uncertainty, fears about growing up, divorce, formation of a new family with step-parents and step-siblings, moving to a new community.  They clearly identify suicide feelings as a “mental disorder.”  They do not mention sexual identity struggles.

·        The American Academy of Pediatrics, in their publication about preventing teen suicide identifies the “long term impact of child abuse” as the leading cause of attempted suicides among women. They emphasize the greater pressures of modern life, competition for grades and college admissions as well as increased violence in the media. They also cite lack of parental involvement because of divorce, parents’ work schedule and limited family life.

·        One study reported that 90% of suicidal teenagers believed that there family did not understand them.

·        This Disciplinary change is fundamentally dishonest because its purpose is to provide a way around the Disciplinary restriction against funding homosexual groups and efforts to promote homosexuality. The Women’s Division is using the two exceptions (HIV and teen suicide) to fund high school homosexual groups and to promote “understanding” of sexual identity crises that valid studies do not support.
 

3.   Teen Sexual Identity and Suicide Risk

Analysis of Teen Sexual Identity and Suicide Risk Petition (Advocating for a task force at a cost of $375,000)

Summary:  Using as its rationale the increase in teen suicide and its supposed link to sexual identity and the Christian imperative for human rights and civil liberties for all persons, this petition urges human rights and civil liberties for homosexual persons.  To that end, the Women’s Division proposes to spend $375,000 to fund a task force that will publish research and resource guides, list agencies, recommend legislative action and programs for youth and report back to the 2008 General Conference.

This petition is deceptive for two basic reasons: (1) Teen suicide is far more complex than presented in these two petitions which ignore the prevalent and pervasive risk factors that overshadow sexual identity struggles as an underlying factor in teen suicide.  (2) Homosexual persons already have all the human and civil rights that are granted to all persons in the U.S. constitution, in the Bible and in the United Methodist Discipline.

      Talking points: 

• See the above talking points where reports from various prestigious medical and psychological associations are summarized.  These groups identify the major causes of teen suicide, and sexual identity is not one of their major concerns.
• Rather than addressing the root causes of teen suicide, – divorce, family conflict, drug and alcohol abuse and child abuse – this petition is “using” the tragic increase in teen suicide to promote the special agenda of homosexual activists.
• The inflated budget for this effort reflects poor stewardship –– a part time consultant would be paid $50,000 per year for three years and administrative expenses would be $50,000.
   

4.  Rape As A Crime Against Humanity 

Analysis of Rape As A Crime Against Humanity

 Summary:  This petition seeks to single out the crime of rape as a unique and especially egregious weapon of warfare and to use this hideous crime to: (1) promote a utopian view that the church (through secular means) can and should ensure everyone’s “right” to “safety, nurture, and care”; (2) promote the ratification of the International Criminal Court;  (3) seek reparations for victims of rape; (4) publish materials that will substantiate a “women as victims” perspective.  The petition reveals that rape is prohibited in international documents as a crime against humanity and has been prosecuted under war crimes. Nevertheless, this petition seeks to isolate rape and use this crime to promote the four goals mentioned above.  (This petition, based upon the pacifist, anti-war, statements from Social Principle 165C, fails to acknowledge the “just war” position supported by 165G.)

 Rape is, indeed, a hideous crime and the church has always taken strong stands against rape and other abuse of women.  Rape as a method of warfare is also a hideous crime that has never been condoned by either civil society or the church.  And, while the church seeks to provide safety, nurture and care, there is, unfortunately and regrettably, no way that these things can be considered a “right” that can be guaranteed to everyone. If it were possible to make that guarantee, most parents would seek it for their children as well as for themselves.  Alas, we work as hard as we can to provide safety, nurture and care; we also pray for the safety, nurturance and care for those we love and for whom we feel responsible, but we cannot guarantee anyone’s safety –– much less their nurture and care –– as a “right.”

It is rather distasteful to see the horrible crime of rape used in this petition to promote a political agenda.  At the same time that the petition ostensibly laments crimes against women, the petition uses those crimes in an unabashedly political way for left-leaning causes –– anti-war, reparations, International Criminal Court, women-as-victims, etc.

       Talking Points: 

• Just as “hate crimes” is redundant –– abuse, attacks, murder are all crimes against humanity –– just so rape is a violent and inhumane crime –– whether committed as an act of war or as an act of individual anger.  As such, rape is already prosecuted –– both when it is the act of an individual and also when it is an act of war. Of course, the United States and all civil societies must continue to be diligent in ensuring that the actions of rogue forces are prosecuted as war crimes, but this is a matter of performing due diligence (monitoring, enforcement, strengthening conventions, etc) rather than a matter of establishing new courts and adopting anti-war ideology.
• Atrocities, such as in Bosnia and Rwanda, were universally condemned and war crime tribunals were established to prosecute those responsible.
• In numerous ways and in numerous international platforms, the United States has committed to assisting “war-ravaged countries to rebuild their justice systems and create processes of accountability so that an international court will be unnecessary.”
• One of the major problems associated with the proposed International Criminal Court is its threat to national sovereignty.  In January of 2002, President Bush sent out multiple versions of the same message:  the United States “does not intend to become a party to the treaty” establishing an International Criminal Court (ICC), and it will not recognize “any legal obligation arising from its signature” (signed by President Clinton in December 2000, but never sent to the Senate for ratification because of legitimate concerns about how the treaty might infringe on the rights of US citizens, federal employees and military forces abroad).  The specific message is that the United States will not recognize any attempt “to assert the ICC’s jurisdiction over American citizens.”
• Legislation passed by Congress established the same position; the legislation, appropriately, was called the American Servicemembers Protection Action (ASPA).
• The International Criminal Court has been called a “kangaroo court” because it lacks due-process provisions and has inadequate checks and balances. It has also been called “a product of fuzzy-minded romanticism” that is “not just naïve, but dangerous.”  Equally important, the ICC cannot and will not prevent politicized prosecutions of Americans and has no accountability to American legal processes or any obligation to the American Constitution.
• The ICC does not define its language and its terms can have many definitions and interpretation of such terms as genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and crimes of aggression.
• The United States has consistently opposed having a United Nations standing army (which would mean that the United Nations would have control over US troops – a possibility that is one of the reasons that the US has NOT ratified the Convention on the Rights of the Child, because the treaty would prohibit recruiting those under 18 years of age –– the US enlists 17-year-olds, though they cannot engage in combat before 18 years of age).
• The utopian proposal to pay reparations is an unrealistic and unworkable rallying cry that is strictly a rhetorical means of engendering sympathy and support for unfortunate individuals who have already been subjected to enough vicious abuse. To whom would money be paid?  How much?  To what end?  Who would be held accountable for providing the money for the reparations? 
• The idea of writing stories and publishing accounts of rapes would sensationalize and victimize those who have already been “used” enough for others’ purposes. Making “victims” of those who have suffered horrible and vicious attacks further victimizes them.  They should be helped in their efforts to restore their dignity and freedom and helped to see that they can move on to rehabilitate their lives as productive citizens and healthy human beings through the transformation and power of God’s grace.

5. The Status of Women, Women: Equality, Development and Peace

Revision of Resolution: No. 181   

Analysis of Resolution No. 181: The Status of Women 

       Talking Points: 

• Secular vs. Christian view of women:  The tone of the opening part of the petition begins negatively with a description of “male preference and dominance.”  The petition, rightly, describes Jesus as pro-women, and attributes that attitude to Jesus’ teachings about love.
• Social justice and women:  The basic premise of this section of the petition is that equality between men and women is a matter of social justice because women must have equal involvement in order to solve problems like poverty, hunger and peace.  The changes in this section are simply organizational. Again, the writing continues to be surprisingly lacking in depth, clarity and focus. There are vast generalizations without supporting documentation or examples.  For instance, the petition asserts an interrelationship between the numerous problems it lists and the status of women, but it doesn’t give any proof or examples.

• UN’s International Women’s Year, 1975, UN World Conference, Mexico City (June 19 – July 2, 1975) and the UN Decade for Women (1976-1985):  The petition praises the “tremendous support” that women received from the UN proclamation in 1975, “International Women’s Year” and declares that the other United Nations’ conferences “expanded and deepened” women’s “status and rights.” No evidence was presented for this assertion, nor was there any support for the subsequent statement that, for Christians, these events were a “time for repentance and new dedication to Christ’s ideal of equality.”  Ironically, I was at the World Council of Churches Eighth Assembly where the women complained bitterly that nothing was accomplished during the UN Decade for Women, that the Decade failed in realizing its goals and potential and that Church failures were largely to blame. 
• What is glossed over in this part of the petition is that the United Nations’ World Conference in Mexico City produced a world-wide abortion effort funded by millions in US taxpayer dollars and under the guise of population assistance and international family planning.  All of this was promoted as part of the UN’s women’s equality efforts.  Then, in the 80s, US President, Ronald Reagan stopped federal funds from being given to any organization that promoted or performed abortions overseas; this policy became known as the “Mexico City Policy.”
• Bill Clinton abolished the “Mexico City Policy” in his first week as President and during his tenure, Congress increased the funding to $300 million per year for organizations devoted to “family planning” –– code designation for abortion provision and promotion.
• Note that although US law prohibits using federal funds for abortion, these NGOs could use the money to cover other costs freeing up their own money for their abortion agenda. Also note that when Congressional Republicans tried to designate extra millions for birth control programs when they controlled Congress in 1996 if President Clinton would prohibit US funds for abortions and abortion promotion overseas, he refused.  That refusal indicated less commitment to women’s reproductive well-being than a desire to promote the abortion agenda.  This is an important point to recognize when the Congress is criticized for cutting “family planning” programs.
• UN Fourth World Conference on Women (Beijing Conference, 1995) and the UN Special Session – Beijing Plus Five (June 5-9, 2000).    In 1995, 189 members of the United Nations (UN) met in Beijing, China, for the Fourth World Conference on Women. The purpose was to create the, Beijing Platform for Action (BPFA), outlining a set of obligations for signatory countries to follow in 12 ”critical areas of concern,“ in order to ensure ”equality“ for women. While rhetorically, we would support this lofty-sounding goal, the crucial aspects of the document are in the fine print.  These “critical areas of concern” are important because they end up being “customary law” and the United Nations can withhold funds for nations that fail to implement the BPFA specifics.  Indeed, in the subsequent United Nations conferences, there have been repeated references to aspects of the BPFA that are now considered established practice and fundamental principles.
• President Clinton issued a mandate following the Beijing Conference establishing a “President’s Interagency Council on Women” for every agency of the United States government in order to “make sure that all the effort and good ideas [of the conference] actually get implemented when we get back home.” Basically, the task force was given carte blanc to establish the feminist agenda throughout the federal government.
• The feminist agenda is summarized in Beijing’s motto: “Women’s rights are human rights,” a phrase introduced by former First Lady, Hillary Clinton that has become a mantra that incorporates Far Left ideology under the guise of women’s rights.
• After the Beijing Conference, 23 members of the US Congress signed a letter expressing “great alarm” over the abortion emphasis at Beijing and the broad interpretation and ramifications of the term, “sexual rights.”  A similar letter was signed by 25 members of Europeans parliaments.
• There were two hard-fought victories at the Beijing Conference that ended up being part of the Platform for Action –– “family” continued to refer specifically to the union of a man and a woman and their children, by birth or adoption and “religious freedom” was established as an inherent right of all human beings.  Since the Beijing Conference, both family and religious freedom have come under attack and have had to be defended.  Certainly, any petition from the Women’s Division should support and defend these two biblical principles; instead their emphasis continues to be aligned with the pro-abortion efforts of the Far Left NGOs and UN delegations, as it was in Beijing.
• The UN assessed each country’s progress in implementing the Beijing Platform for Action at the UN Special Session of the General Assembly, entitled “Women: 2000: Gender Equality, Development and Peace for the Twenty-First Century” (Beijing+5), which met June 5-9, 2000.  This petition asserted that the Beijing +5 conference re-affirmed and advocated stronger measures than the Beijing Conference.  Yet, the reliably left-leaning, Guttmacher Report, in its cover story, “The President's Overseas Reproductive Health Policy: Think Locally, Act Globally,” is a tirade about how conservatives are ruining the UN's programs and effectiveness by “overseeing domestic reproductive health and rights policy.”

·        Women and the Economy: This aspect of the Women’s Division petition is out of date.  Women have made phenomenal strides in terms of their economic well-being.  We are pleased to finally see that terms like “wage gap” and “glass ceiling” no longer apply to women’s economic prospects.  When all factors are considered (such as age, work experience, job requirements, qualifications and education, whether working full or part time) and when women do not drop out of the work force to have children, they actually earn 98 cents on the dollar in comparison to men –– instead of the typical claim that women earn only 76 cents on the dollar in comparison to what men earn.  All the rhetoric about salary inequities reflect a utopian desire for corporations to pay for women’s choices and for women to be able to make personal decisions without professional consequences. Thus, there are efforts supported by the Women’s Division to have quotas; the end result is to produce a “victim” mentality that is detrimental to women’s efforts and to women’s equality.

·        What women really want is workplace flexibility; they want to be able to work part time, to have flexible hours, and to have more family-friendly policies.  One of the biggest problems families face today is what William Maddox called the “family time famine” –– a hectic lifestyle that leaves little time for meals together and other family unifying activities.  This has, especially, become a problem with so many mothers in the workforce –– more than 70% (72.3) of mothers with children under 18 were employed in 2000.  As a result, people are working longer hours than ever before –– nearly 2000 (1978) hours a year now compared to 1779 in 1973.

• Women and work is a complicated problem because many women are compelled to work outside the home when they would prefer to be able to care for their children themselves.  Many feel trapped by a job that is necessary for them to continue in their current lifestyle (home in a good neighborhood, two cars, vacation, etc.)
• These are all concerns that need to be addressed in a well-informed and reasoned discussion instead of continuing the tired rhetoric of women’s victimhood.
• Women in Power and Decision-Making: This section of the petition is, of necessity, quite generalized since few people would advocate forcing women into power; it is a gradual process of earning respect and having people follow women’s leadership.  The petition points out areas where greater equity is desirable –– granting women voting rights, having women represented in government.  The problem with most efforts is that they mandate quotas when not enough women have the desire and/or the training, education and experience to fill those quotas. 
• In the United Methodist Church, as in many other denominations and churches, the problem is more often the lack of men willing and able to be effective leaders, thereby, leaving women to do too much of the work and carry too much of the responsibility.
• A problem not mentioned in the petition is the continuing barriers in some Christian circles to accepting women’s leadership abilities.
• The matter of women in power and decision-making is a complex one and worthy of more thorough and thought-provoking attention than the cursory and scattered treatment in this petition.

·        Violence Against Women and Education for Women:  It does not work to link these two separate matters because both end up lacking the depth of investigation that would be desirable. 

·        First, violence against women.  The Petition declares that violence against women is widespread – tragically widespread.  Without citing a source, they assert that one third of the women in the world report being physically or sexually abused by a husband or boyfriend at some point in their lives.  The Church needs to be called to account for its unwillingness to address the problem of violence against women; too often the Church has swept incidences of sexual abuse and other abuse under the rug and failed to deal justly with women’s grievances and men’s failures and violence. 

·        However, it must be noted that domestic violence is more often perpetrated by a live-in boyfriend than by a husband.  Domestic violence is more typical of cohabiting couples than of married ones. And, indeed, data indicates that violence against women has declined since 1976. Specifically, the crimes against women –– rape and sexual assault –– have declined steadily since 1980 (even though now rape is more broadly defined).

·        Richard J. Gelles, Ph.D., a professor in the Child Welfare and Family Violence Department, University of Pennsylvania School of Social Work, is an expert on violence against women and has authored numerous publications on the subject.  His research and analysis has found that the “common statements about domestic violence” are “unsupported, misleading or outright false.”

·        Obviously, there are bullies around who batter women and psychological battering damages as well as physical beatings.  But real violence is denigrated when exaggerated and unsubstantiated claims are sensationalized. We provide a horrible disservice to women who are brutalized when we broaden our definitions of violence to include slights and insults.

·        The Church needs to continue to reach out to those who have been abused, but if abuse is to be taken seriously, we must stick to the truth and avoid exaggerations of the problem.  In addition, we must address root causes –– such as cohabitation and promiscuity –– if we are to truly help women.

·        Further, men are more often victims of violence than are women (for instance, data published by the Independent Women’s Forum indicates that men are 77.1% of murder victims and are more likely to be victims of violence crimes –– violent crime rate is 60.9 per thousand for males and 42.3 per thousand for females –– and except for rape/sexual assault, the victimization rate for every category of violent crime was higher for males than females. Furthermore, men are punished more severely than women.  Women generally receive substantially shorter average sentences than do men for the same crimes.  Approximately 95.5% of state prison inmates are men.  Among federal prisoners, 92.3% are men. And men killing their wives receive substantially longer sentences (excluding life sentences and the death penalty) than do women who kill their husbands, with sentences for unprovoked spousal killings averaging seventeen years for men compared to seven for women.)

·        But the problem of violence against women hinges on the definition of violence.  In response to a question about how she would define violence against women, one official of the World Council of Churches responded with vehemence that “if a woman is meant to write poetry and she is denied that right, that is violence against women.”

·        In an official United Nations’ document there is a statement equating violence against women and women’s reproductive health rights by saying that "in the context of violence that all women have a right to have control over and decide freely on their sexual and reproductive health free of coercion and violence."

·        At the most recent Commission on the Status of Women at the United Nations there was heated argument over whether to provide "rehabilitation" for victims of sex trafficking.  "Rehabilitation is a value judgment" said some delegations and stated that it is culture that must adapt and accept without imposing its value judgment on others. So, instead of helping hurting women and children who have been violated by the international sex trade industry, these ideologues are demanding that society embrace slave trade as viable employment.

• Women and Health:  To read this petition is to see that the primary aspect of women’s health that is of concern to the Women’s Division is access to abortion and that women be “fully informed and fully involved in the decision making” relative to abortion.  Current statistics indicate that abortions are declining as women learn more about their baby’s development through ultrasound procedures and as they learn more about the ramifications of abortion on their own health and well-being.  Obviously, women’s health involves much more than their reproductive options. 
• In this petition, there is an example of how statements from United Nations’ documents become accepted as “law.”  The petition reads: “The United Nations has declared that education and access to means for determining the number and spacing of children is a human right, yet this is an ideal far from realization.”  That statement reflects the Beijing Platform for Action where the phrase “women’s rights are human rights” became a mantra.  “Women’s rights,” they believe, include reproductive rights.  The Leftist ideologues would force contraception and abortion along with other Western concepts onto third world nations regardless of cultural or religious traditions; this is a form of cultural imperialism that the Women’s Division ought to condemn.

·        Women and HIV/AIDS:  Again, the Women’s Division programs are inseparable from the United Nations’ programs.  And, again, the petition offers a sketchy overview that lacks depth in facing the ramifications and complexity of the problem. Nevertheless, the Women’s Division is right to make an issue of the HIV/AIDS threat because after a decade of decline, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention indicates that HIV/AIDS is again on the rise in the United States.  Not surprisingly, the increase is among homosexual men (AIDS cases in 2002 were up 2 percent over 2001 and HIV cases up 7%).  What is not mentioned in the petition, however, is the relationship between the rise in HIV/AIDS and sexual behavior.  

·        The situation in Africa is even worse.  The United States has pledged over $15 billion over the next five years to fight global aids, especially in Africa where 70% of the global HIV/AIDS cases are.  The US program is tied to abstinence because of the success that Uganda has had in reducing its HIV/AIDS cases 30% in under a decade and a half by emphasizing the “ABCs” –– abstinence, be faithful and if you won’t do that, use condoms.   The ABC approach enabled Uganda to decrease their infection rate below 20% by 1995 and down to 5% by 2000.   So an African nation that once has the world’s highest infection rate, has reduced their number of cases by 70% by encouraging their young people to be abstinent and their couples to be faithful.

• The Women’s Division can promote “social and cultural” factors as the source of women’s vulnerability to HIV, but Uganda has proven that abstinence and faithfulness work in reducing the rates of infection.  It is time for the Church to abandon their utopian and victimization messages in favor of realistic, biblically based solutions to women’s problems. For too long, Western nations have imposed their social-utopian agendas on third-world nations and, in the case, of HIV/AIDS, there have been tragic results. The Church has the answer; the Women’s Division ought to be helping to solve the problem rather than promoting a liberal agenda.

·        Women and Armed Conflict: Rather than address the issue of whether women ought to be in the front lines of military conflicts, the Women’s Division returns, yet again, to its theme of violence against women in times of war. When such repetition occurs, it indicates a determination to get some petition through the General Conference processes one way or another.  In this petition the same arguments are presented that were presented in several previous petitions –– violence against women, the evils of “colonial” and “alien” domination, “foreign occupation” and “violations of human rights” (by which they mean the soldiers who risk death to rescue people who live under oppressive regimes, rather than the brutal dictators who terrorize the populace of their own countries).

 Section II:  Petitions about Racism and Justice: 

7. Environmental Justice for a Sustainable Future—Revised Resolution 

Analysis of Resolution: Environmental Justice for a Sustainable Future 

Summary:  Somehow, faulty ideas, philosophies, and economic theories seem to have a life of their own even though events of history illustrate their failure.  In the case of the dire predictions of the “overpopulation problem” and “dire environmental predictions, the “life of their own” is helped along by petitions such as this one.

Of concern in this revised resolution is the statement, “Therefore, we are called to a global sense of community and solidarity leading to a new world system of international relationships and economic/environmental order.”  This is a utopian vision that is unsustainable.  Embedded in this thinking is often a hatred of capitalism and American prosperity which fuels the myth that the United States is robbing the rest of the world of the chance to thrive.

Reading through this petition, one can’t help but remember that early in 2004, former Vice President Al Gore spoke on global warming in New York City on their coldest day in recorded history.  But putting aside jest, environmental concerns are real and need to be taken seriously and acted upon responsibly.  Stewardship of the earth is a Christian directive, but it does not need to be coupled with radical environmentalism that seeks to control the social, economic and environmental decisions of sovereign nation-states through United Nations’ directives.

        Talking Points: 

• Conservative ecumenical environmental groups decry the extremism of radical environmentalism, while acknowledging the importance of environmental stewardship.  One such group, the Interfaith Council for Environmental Stewardship (ICES), issued a declaration that identified three areas of misunderstanding in environmental debate: a tendency to view humans as principally consumers and polluters rather than producers and stewards; a romantic view of nature that sees an untouched Earth as the ideal; and a tendency among decision makers to pursue misguided, though well-intended, policies that hurt the poor by impeding economic growth.
• Another evangelical environmental group is Evangelical Environmental Network (EEN).  EEN is an evangelical ministry whose purpose is to “declare the Lordship of Christ over all creation (Co. 1:15-20).  EEN was formed because of the recognition that many “environmental” problems are fundamentally spiritual problems.  This network seeks environmental solutions that are grounded in Jesus Christ and the Bible.  Contact EEN at een@creationcare.org.  Environmental concerns are not downplayed by EEN, but rather faced as part of Christian stewardship of creation, without the extremism of many environmentalists.

• In 1968, Paul Ehrlich published The Population Bomb and introduced the problem of “overpopulation.”  That book was followed in 1974 by The End of Affluence where he wrote about “the age of scarcity.”  He declared that the depletion of food minerals and oil was inevitable by 1985. The public was bombarded with dire predictions about global starvation and energy shortages.  Since then, there have been numerous assertions that the world is overpopulated and that people are using up the world’s resources, but we have passed his deadlines without his predictions coming true. The apocalyptic assertions fly in the face of facts: virtually all demographers show that population growth is declining.  In fact, many are worried about the fact that women are having fewer children. So instead of worrying about overpopulation, there is very real concern about human replacement rates.
• In fact, Nicholas Eberstadt, demographer and a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute notes that fertility rates have declined for the past 35 years and that the world’s population will likely peak at around 8 billion by 2050.  If Eberstadt is right, and he is generally considered on target, population growth will be at around 27% in the next 50 years (instead of the 100% of the past 50 years).
• In terms of food production, a Nobel Peace Prize winner, Norman Borlaug writes that “the world has the technology . . . to feed a population of 10 billion people” (remember the peak number for 2050 is 8 billion).
• In terms of minerals and oil, the price of metals is at an all-time low and oil reserves are at an all-time high. (International Monetary Fund and Department of Interior)

8.     Environmental Racism—Revised Resolution 

Analysis of the Revised Resolution: Environmental Racism 

Summary:  One of the activists against so-called “environmental racism” called it “old wine in new bottles” referring to the old problem of racism being brought into a new realm, the environment.

No one wants to live near pollutants and no compassionate person would want anyone to live near hazardous waste. Rules and regulations are much stricter now that we know the dangers of such materials to the health of human beings.  Going back and handling old wastes appropriately is a time-consuming and expensive endeavor, but the process has begun, and must be continued.

This petition continues the familiar victimization of people of color and the poor.  It continues to build the case for what presidential candidate Senator Joe Lieberman has called “a national scandal.”

 Albeit, hazardous waste and pollutants must be discarded and places must be found where they can be disposed of.   Such materials are disposed of in out-of-the-way and undesirable areas.  Those who can afford to do not choose to live in such areas choosing instead the more desirable areas.  The poor, who have fewer options, live in undesirable areas.  While not all the poor are black or other minorities, people of color are disproportionately poor and will therefore suffer disproportionately.  It is just to assure that people of color do not suffer disproportionately from pollutants and hazardous waste disposal. 

 This Women’s Division Resolution has merit.  However, several points need to be provided for balance.

       Talking Points: 

• Robert Rector, Heritage Foundation scholar, analyzed the poverty data released in late, 2003.  He found that only a small number of the people classified as “poor” are destitute.  Instead, they are better off than the majority of well-off people were just a few generations ago.  For instance, the lowest one-fifth of households spends an amount equal to the median American household in the 1970s when adjusted for inflation.  More surprising is that nearly half of all poor households own their own homes and it is a 3-bedroom house with 1.5 baths, a garage, porch or patio.  More than ¾ have air conditioners and own a car (nearly 1/3 own two or more) and more than 2/3 have two rooms per person. 97% have color television (half have 2 or more), 78% have VCR or DVD, 62% have cable or satellite TV connections. 73% have microwaves, half have stereo and a third have a dishwasher.  Poor children today eat well above the recommended norms and actually consume more meat than higher-income children, though sadly there are still cases of hungry children. 
• POINT:  These families are not living an opulent lifestyle, but they are not in dire poverty.  Many families classified as poor could afford to live in safe environments. 
• The major reasons for poverty are two-fold: the parents don’t work much (about 16 hours per week) and the fathers are absent from the household (2/3 of poor children are in single-parent homes with 1.3 million additional out-of-wedlock births every year).
• Hundreds, if not thousands, of law suits have been brought to recompense people who have unwittingly built homes on properties where dangerous wastes were disposed of improperly.  These suits have cost the taxpayers millions and millions of dollars in clean-up costs and in recompense for people affected.  This is an appropriate use of taxpayer funds.
• The solution to the problem of environmental racism is multi-faceted—to address the underlying causes of poverty, enable upward mobility for the working poor, assure that race is not a factor in determining the location of hazardous waste storage, and, at the same time, assure that environmental clean-up is progressing.

9.     Support Reparations for African Americans ––– Revised Resolution

Analysis of Revised Resolution: Support Reparations for African Americans

Summary:  Trial lawyers are bringing class-action suits against the federal government and some corporations charging that they profited from slavery and that black people are due reparations for that tragic era in the nation’s history.  The bill before the Congress, HR 40, is called, “Commission to Study Reparation Proposals for African-Americans Act.”  This revised Resolution submitted by the Women’s Division calls for reparations for African Americans and for support of the passage of HR 40.

The reparations proposal is unrealistic and unworkable and perpetuates the unfairness and injustice of the whole slavery issue.  While we acknowledge the fact that slavery violated human rights in inhumane and often violent and tragic ways, there is no way to go back and right the harm that was done to the slaves.  What we must do is to see that no such tragedy occurs again.

This petition fails to diagnose the real problem facing black Americans and therefore, has proposed a faulty solution that would prove hurtful to those demanding reparation, to race-relations and to the culture that supports opportunities for upward mobility and progress for black Americans.

       Talking points:

·        While almost no one defends the abomination of slavery, it is meaningless for a group of people to apologize to a group of people.  And, there is no end to the groups who could claim that someone owes them an apology.

·        The questions regarding reparations are two simple ones:  who will pay the reparations, and who will receive the payments?  Obviously, citizens today through their tax payments would be paying fellow citizens today –– the process for determining who would get the payments is yet to be determined as is the amount to be paid and how that amount would be calculated.

·        Estimates range from a conservative $1.4 trillion to $10 trillion. These figures are what the government owes to Black Americans for “the slavery their ancestor’s were forced to endure,” said Richard America from Georgetown University.

·        Further, we must acknowledge the complexity of the slavery issue.  Most white southerners did not own slaves and suffered economic setbacks from the Civil War as severe as some of the slaves.  Some Black farm and plantation owners were also slave owners.  The Blacks who became slaves were there, in part, because their African compatriots sold them out. 

·        There are those who would argue that today’s Blacks are much better off  –– even with their slave heritage –– than they would be had their ancestors remained in Africa.  In fact, Mona Charen, a popular syndicated columnist wrote: "So many blacks in Africa have suffered starvation and massacres in the 130 years since slavery was abolished that at least one black writer has expressed his gratitude that his ancestors were taken as slaves to America. History is not simple."

·        Others would argue that the farm culture that fostered and depended upon slavery was already dying a natural death as more mechanized farming methods were being adopted.  Finally, there is no end to the reparations that could be demanded –– from students who lived in neighborhoods where the schools were sub-par and prevented them from getting college scholarships to the prestigious universities, from women whose careers were limited before the glass ceiling began to crack open, from athletes whose coaches didn’t have the contacts that enabled them to get noticed by the recruiters; the list could go on at length citing groups whose futures were limited by circumstances and opportunities.

·        But the overriding issue is the question about why Black Americans are facing the problems they are facing today.  Overwhelmingly, historians, sociologists and demographers agree that today’s problems have nothing to do with the legacy of slavery, rather they stem from the breakdown of the Black family.  One of clarion voices is Walter Williams of George Mason University.  He declares that most of the problems facing Black Americans today “have nothing to do with race; they’re social and economic.”

·        During the 1950s Black families were stable with 78% of them married couples, but by the 1980s 62% of black children were born to single mothers –– most of them living in poverty.  In contrast, the married-couple families experienced unprecedented progress and today, stable black married-couple families constitute a growing middle and upper class of extraordinary achievement.  Both groups –– the single mothers who form a lower-class of limited opportunity and the educated married-couple middle and upper class who are prospering –– are descendents of slaves.

·        This petition endorses a course of action that will hurt, not help African Americans.  It fails to address the real issue of the breakdown of the Black family that has impacted the economic and social progress of Black Americans.  Within the Black community there are many who would not support reparations for African Americans.  For more information, visit www.issues-views.com. 
 

10.  Global Racism and Xenophobia:  Impact on Women, Children and Youth 

Analysis of Global Racism and Xenophobia: Impact on Women, Children

and Youth 

Summary:  Once again, a Women’s Division petition echoes in eerily familiar rhetoric of the themes and programs of the United Nations.  A press release from the United Nations encouraged nations and NGOs to undertake “education campaigns to eliminate racism and xenophobia as part of the Third Decade to Combat Racism.”  Further, the press release stressed the importance of ratifying the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of Migrant Workers and the Convention for Protection of National Minorities.  The descriptive language and content describing these conventions is echoed in this petition.

 And, like so many of the other petitions, this petition lacks focus and precision –– it is a conglomeration of issues that loosely link racism with women and children.  The petition duplicates concerns that are mentioned in previous petitions and proposes rather expensive and time-consuming activities that would have marginal effectiveness –– creating a “monitoring instrument” to assess racism in programs for and with women and children, using that instrument in numerous, broad-based agencies and institutions to evaluate programs to determine their impact on reducing racism in programs for women and children, and preparing a report about how women, children and youth are affected by racism. 

 As defined in this petition, “racism” refers to various intolerances (particularly as applied to women, children and youth) such as those related to race, color, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.  This petition stretches the concept of “intolerance” to cover religious, political, “other opinion” or “other status” so that it would be difficult to evangelize persons of other religious beliefs or to question political or “other” opinions on the basis of moral or ethical principles without being labeled “racist.”

       Talking Points: 

• Most United Methodist Women agree that racism is harmful and wrong whether directed at males or females, adults or children. They would support the general theme of this petition –– eliminating racism that negatively affects women and children.  But, this petition just provides yet another avenue through which the Women’s Division and other church agencies can expand their staffs and budgets by initiating programs that duplicate other efforts and examine women’s issues from yet another perspective.
• Another aspect of the petition is troubling –– it advocates encouraging children in indigenous and minority communities to enjoy their own “religion.”  How does this fit in with the missionary imperative of the Women’s Division?  Respecting the religious rights of an indigenous or minority group is different from encouraging them to enjoy their own religion.

·        A basic premise of the petition is that xenophobia has had a profound effect on women's lives up to and including the present day. One would think that it is enough that secularists accuse the church of sexism and misunderstand the biblical imperative for Christians to serve one another (not just women, but all believers are required to submit to God); we do not need the Women’s Division to substantiate such distortions of biblical theology.
 

11.                         In Defense of International Law and Cooperation: Cornerstone of Multilateralism—New Resolution

Analysis of the New Resolution: In Defense of International Law and

Cooperation: Cornerstone of Multilateralism

Summary:  The ignorance and anti-Americanism in this petition is appalling and is unworthy of dignifying with a response.  The assertions are based on Marxist and socialist ideology.  The gross generalizations and misstatements are too numerous to recount –– beginning with Anna Quinlan’s accusation that the United States uses its power for dominance, not for good.  Ask the Iraqi people who are finally free of the evil Saddam regime.  Ask Afghanistan’s women who can go to school, continue their careers and walk freely on the streets. There is not a shred of evidence that the United States has “conquered” any nation to occupy and control it.  The UN and the Women’s Division, on the other hand, have disregarded cultural prohibitions against birth control and abortion to say to women in other nations that they must use contraceptives and choose abortion.

This petition asserts that the US “is manipulating international law, weakening international cooperation and using multilateralism only if its self-interest is preserved.”  Such breathtakingly arrogant and erroneous statements have no place in a United Methodist document and United Methodist women ought to be outraged! The petition provides a counterargument when it enumerates the amount that the US is spending on military programs, but

it fails to note that this money ($1 billion a day) and personnel (largest number of military bases around the world) is used to protect nations that are incapable of protecting themselves. Such distortions are unconscionable. This legislation should be defeated and the Women’s Division should be held accountable for spreading such misinformation and propaganda.

This petition, like others submitted to GC2004, again advocates the ratification of controversial UN treaties and the passing legislation that have not been approved because of their destructive content.

      Talking Points:

·        This petition states that no country can develop solutions to these grave concerns alone, yet the United States is alone in providing overwhelmingly the cost of rehabilitating both Afghanistan and Iraq.  We are pouring billions of dollars into Africa to combat HIV/AIDS.  No country matches the amount of money nor the commitment to assist nations that need help.

·        Previous petitions have also promoted the International Criminal Court, the Convention to End Discrimination Against Women and other international treaties sponsored by the UN; please refer to those sections for explanations about the US opposition to the various treaties. Basically, the UN treaties are an attempt to force the US to surrender its national sovereignty.  In the case of the ICC, US citizens abroad could not be protected by the United States when accused of crimes while in another country.  This would especially be true of US military personnel.  In the case of CEDAW, none of the aspects of that convention are needed in the US since they are already a part of national law, but the implementation of the convention would be evaluated by a committee of 23 representatives (currently including Cuba, China, Iran and similar non-free nations).  Were the US to ratify these documents, its citizens would be at the mercy of rogue nations and their dictators.  The Convention on the Rights of the Child would grant to children as young as 10 years of age the right to make decisions independent of their parents.  Such denial of parental responsibility for nurturing and protecting their children is nothing short of child abuse.

·        This petition is remarkably similar to the reports coming out of the October, 2003 meeting in San Paulo, Chile –– the XXII Congress of the Socialist International –– where their stated purpose was “to promote a new world order based on a new multilateralism for peace, security, sustainable development, social justice, democracy, respect for human rights, and gender equality.” [Incidentally, the Chile conference also advocated “global governance” and called the disparity between poverty and wealth “intolerable” and blamed the wealthy nations for the poverty of the poor ones instead of recognizing the “drag” on the economy of poor nations when their people are poorly educated, their cultures are filled with superstition and their governments are rife with tribalism and despotism.  In many of the poorest nations, the despots seize the nation’s wealth and leave their people impoverished.  These dictators rule with a vicious tyranny that jails entrepreneurs, seizes national resources and denies justice.]

12.  Affirmative Action –– Revised Resolution

See Social Principles, '66; " A Charter for Racial Justice Policies in an Interdependent Global Community"; "Ethnic Membership on Boards and Agencies."

Analysis of the Revised Resolution: Affirmative Action

Summary: This petition advocates affirmative action programs to promote inclusion and diversity.Ironically, the petition would accomplish the exact opposite of its intent.  People would be judged by the very qualities that the petition seeks to make invisible.  Affirmative action would be a step backwards because it would discriminate on the basis of certain characteristics –– exactly what its purpose is meant to avoid. 

In the case of this petition, we could paraphrase the multi-talented Booker T. Washington who gave very sage analysis back in 1911.  Paraphrase version, substituting Women’s Division for Negroes: "There is a group of people in the Women’s Division who make a business of keeping the troubles, the wrongs, and the hardships of minorities and women before the church. Some of these people do not want minorities and women to lose their grievances, because they do not want to lose their jobs. Sadly, certain Women’s Division problem solvers don't want the patient to get well."

Talking Points

·        The Women’s Division continues to promote policies that are out-of-date and out-of-step with the general public.  Affirmative Action has been discredited and has become the hackneyed solution for ideologues who are still advocating 1970s solutions to new millennium problems.  Thomas Sowell, the astute social commentator, says of affirmative action that “it was a bad idea all along-even before politicians had the nerve to say so.”

·        George Will, Washington Post columnist, criticized the Left for having “little ideological clarity beyond its belief in racial, ethnic, and sexual preferences.”  He said that the Left tries “to speak the language of the nation's convictions while serving the diametrically opposed desires of a few factions” and that affirmative action would “collapse under the accumulating weight of its contradictions."

 Section III:  Petitions about the Economy and Environment:  

13. Protection of Water –– New Resolution 

Analysis of New Resolution: Protection of Water

Summary: Clean, safe water is a priority for survival yet some experts say that a billion people on our planet lack access to safe drinking water and two billion lack adequate sanitation. Others say that usable freshwater is less than one percent of all the water on earth and that the world is losing substantial amounts of groundwater every year.  Obviously, we cannot be complacent about the world’s water supply and we must, of necessity, be concerned about water conservation.  Nevertheless, United Methodists can encourage and promote, we can support and push, but we cannot “demand.”  Further, if our urging is to have any impact and our “demands” carry any weight or authority, our information must be accurate and our arguments solidly reasoned.  This petition is a thinly researched document whose sole purpose appears to be to promote (ineffectively) the UN World Summit on Sustainable Development and the UN International Year of Freshwaters.
 

14.                          Privatization –– New Resolution

Analysis of New Resolution: Privatization

Summary:  This well-written and well-developed (but misguided) petition explains the rationale for its recommendations and presents solid arguments for the proposed Call to Action.  Basically, the petition argues that anytime services are given to private corporations and entities the federal government ought to oversee the effort to ensure that the public’s best interests are served.  The petition argues that private services enrich the corporate officers to the detriment of the people being served.  This petition urges not just government-funded national health care, but world-wide health care.  It also supports world trade rules to “protect” against private entrepreneurs.  In other words, this petition urges greater government control of private enterprise and complete government control of public services and resources.  The petition “insists” that the federal budget use tax money to run public services and regulate private services.  Obviously, the petition does not use the United States Post Office as an example of the quality of service that would be provided if the federal government controlled and regulated public and private services.  The principles of “big government” and Socialism pervade this resolution.

15.   Greed ––  New Resolution 

Analysis of New Resolution: Greed 

Summary:  In this petition, the Women’s Division forgot the admonition against judging others.  The tone of the petition is very judgmental with overarching generalizations about the wealthy (described as materialistic and indifferent to the needs of the poor) and capitalism (described as based on greed and economic exploitation).

The simplistic perspective of this petition would be laughable if it were not so tragic; it is incomprehensible that supposedly intelligent and well-educated people would make a statement that “human greed and hard‑heartedness” is the cause of human suffering and material desperation –– thus blaming the rich for the situation of the poor. 

       Talking Points: 

• This petition accuses (by implication) the US of greed, materialism, privilege and oppressive power.  It describes our current age as worshipers of “economic privileges that benefit the rich and powerful.”
• The flawed concept of “redistribution” of wealth is built on the foundation that creating wealth in America (or elsewhere) prevents other nations from prospering.  Nothing could be further from the truth – if we thwart economic growth everyone will suffer.  What good will it do to destroy property rights and prevent Americans from saving, spending and investing?  It is the creation of jobs and the encouragement of entrepreneurialism that produces wealth and jobs.
• The Women’s Division recommends that measures be implemented that would reduce the concentration of wealth “in the hands of the few” –– socialism –– and advocates new tax structures to equalize income.  The basic assumption is that the wealthy have become wealthy at the expense of the poor –– a very incomplete and erroneous view of economics and the role of entrepreneurship.
• Further, this petition advocates treating “human needs” as “human rights.”  Thus, everyone has a “human right” to not be poor.  By implication, the petition accuses the rich of demanding that the poor grovel in obeisance and blames the rich for the debt of the poor.
• The solution advocated in this petition?  Everyone should share resources (socialism and utopianism) and seek “new forms of democracy” (including debt cancellation for poor nations).

Conclusion:  These petitions are a rehashing of tired utopian and socialist rhetoric that echoes United Nations’documents and proposes the same old ideas that are hopelessly out of touch with reality and with solid research about what has worked over the past 20 years to bring hope and give a future to the poor and underprivileged minorities in this nation and around the world.  The petitions, with some exceptions, are poorly written with sketchy logic and reasoning. They are repetitious and unfocused. But the worst criticism is that they fail to bring into the picture the transforming power of Jesus Christ and the faithful outworking of the gospel through the United Methodist Church as it gives a human dimension to biblical principles for a hurting and needy world that looks to God’s people for hope and faith and God’s grace in their times of need.

Dr. Janice Shaw Crouse is trained in rhetorical and content analysis.  In addition, she applied her professional experience over the past decade in cultural women’s and family issues to her analysis of the fifteen legislative petitions submitted to the 2004 General Conference of the United Methodist Church by the Women’s Division.  Dr. Crouse leads the Washington, D.C. based Center for Studies in Women’s Issues.  She is active in the coalition to Combat Trafficking in Persons and serves on a Task Force to Eliminate Violence Against Women.  Dr. Crouse is a United Methodist laywoman and is a member of the Good News Board of Directors and the RENEW Steering Committee.

[ About Us ] [ Contact us ] [ Other Links ] [ Archives ] [ Home ]