In December 2002, the Women's Division prepared an "Information Packet" in response to the joint newsletter issued by RENEW and UMAction.  Recently, information about the content of this packet was posted to the Women's Division web site, http://gbgm-umc.org/umw/renew_response1202.html  Visit this web site to view the packet and to download the documents listed in it. 

Opening Remarks:

It is RENEW's assessment that the Women's Division Information Packet fails to address the charges made in our Call for Reform documents.  This is particularly true in relation to the six areas identified in Our Basis for Concern which are only slightly mentioned in this packet.  Our documented listing of misdirected programs and policies still stands as a strong witness of the theological, political and social worldview held and promoted by the Women's Division.  No doubt, the Women's Division is sincere, and believe their work to be noble.

However, the Women's Division's perspective is devoid of the mission mandate to proclaim Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior of the world.  It is unfaithful to the historic witness of the Church universal in several areas.  It is a narrow and politically partisan worldview that excludes the broader scope of Christian understanding that is at work in the world, transforming all aspects of human existence.

Analysis of Women's Division Information Packet:

What follows is a brief analysis of the various components of the Women's Division packet, issued in response to the Call for Reform newsletter (UmAction Briefing) jointly released by the RENEW Network and UMAction.

Basic Documents

Document 1: This was the official statement of the Administrative Committee of the Women's Division issued in March of 2002 in response to the Call for Reform.  This statement, contrary to the claim in the Information Packet, did not deal with the major issues raised.  Rather, the first section of the Women's Division paper restated the right of the Division to be the interpreter of the Purpose of United Methodist Women, and simply outlined the resources and programs through which the Division fulfills this role.  These resources and programs have proven unreliable.

The second part of the statement responded to concern expressed about specific decisions made at the October 2001 Women's Division Board of Directors meeting. While our call for Reform alluded to the decisions made at the October 2001 meeting, it did far more.  RENEW's White Paper (Our Basis for Concern) that accompanied our original press release outlined six long-standing areas of concern, which this statement of the Administrative Committee failed to address at all. 

Document 2: This document is identified as a preview of Joyce Sohl's "Responsively Yours" column scheduled for the February 2003 issue of Response magazine.  It is actually a revamped version of Ms. Sohl's speech to the board of directors in the spring of 2002.  This document addresses the subject of "accountability."

In this piece, Ms. Sohl says that the term "accountability" has little meaning "if those receiving the report or explanation do not believe what is said or do not agree with the basic assumptions under which the action was taken."  This implies that there are no fixed points that determine whether an individual or a group is being accountable, but that it is entirely relative. This understanding is unacceptable since Christianity claims that there is doctrinal truth against which words or action can be measured.

This ambiguousness of understanding is most troubling in the section entitled "Accountability to the Gospel of Jesus Christ."  Ms. Sohl indicates that this is the most difficult area of accountability because, "The opinions that each of us has about the gospel are ours, but they may not be the same as those of other members within our unit or within the membership of the organization."  She goes on to say, "All of us may feel that our understandings are the correct interpretations of the biblical message, but none of us can be sure of that fact."  In actuality, the basic tenets of Christian faith are clearly defined, and embraced across denominational lines.

Document 3: This is the most extensive document in the Information Packet. While this document attempted to re-identify the questionable groups supported monetarily by the Women's Division, not a single inaccuracy was pointed out in our descriptions. RENEW and UMAction stand behind the descriptions provided in our financial analysis of these organizations.  The political, social and theological positions of these groups is not difficult to verify. 

This document endeavors to identify Scriptures and sections from the Book of Discipline and the Book of Resolutions which supposedly justifies grants to these questionable organizations.  While much effort went into an attempt to justify their endorsement of organizations whose programs many United Methodists would not choose to support, this was shallow proof-texting (attempting to make the text fit the interpretation or action).  Obviously, we see a wide difference of opinion here between the Women's Division and the views of many within their membership.

Six Charges from Our Basis for Concern

For the first time since the Call for Reform was issued in November of 2001, the Women's Division has decided to speak to the six areas of charges listed in the Call for Reform document, Our Basis for Concern.  However, the response is terse and inadequate. 

1.  Pro-Abortion Position: While the abortion statement in the Book of Discipline is not
as clear as we would like, it does not give license for the pro-abortion rights the 
Women's Division has endorsed for years.  The Women's Division has opposed all restrictions on abortion. There is room in our official UM statement for a pro-life position as well.  The Women's Division relies heavily upon the statement in the Book of Resolutions for it gives greater support to their "official" pro-abortion stance.  Although the Book of Resolutions contains official expressions of the UMC, it does not carry the same binding authority as the Book of Discipline. 

2. Actions showing support for homosexual practice: While the Women's Division claims to be in compliance with the Discipline on this issue, the documentation in Our Basis for Concern shows an overwhelming support for the acceptance of homosexual practice and advocacy in behalf of it through various avenues. 

A recent occurrence verifies the complicity that occurs when funding is given to organizations whose purposes are at cross-purposes with the Book of Discipline.  The Discipline makes it clear that funding is not to be provided for homosexual advocacy. A gift was given in 2000 to the National Organization of Women Legal Defense and 
Education Fund ($2,500).  Early in 2003, the NOW Legal Defense and Education Fund filed an Amicus Brief in support of the seven Massachusetts homosexual couples who filed a lawsuit (on its way to the state Supreme Court) demanding that the state establish "the freedom to join in civil marriage with the person [you] love."  Passage would overturn state policies restricting marriage to a man and a woman.  At the time of the funding of the 2000 Women's Division grant, the position of NOW on homosexual marriage was common knowledge. 

3.  Support for the 1993 Re-Imagining Conference and Community: The statement in the Information Packet completely ignores the multiple connections between the Women's Division and the Re-Imagining Community clearly identified in Our Basis for Concern. To hearken back to the tepid 1994 statement and to claim that it answered all charges made at that time and since that time, shows complete disregard for the concern this issue has raised over the years.  This response is blatant dishonesty.  As stated in the Information Packet, the position of the Women's Division has not changed.  Nor has the Division at any time renounced the theology of Re-Imagining or distanced itself from it.

4. Questionable Theological Teaching and Social Justice Mission Concept: The Information Packet responds to our charge by appealing to the section of the Book of Discipline called "Our Theological Task."  A review of this section reveals a rather broad spectrum for theological interpretation.  However, repeatedly this section reminds us that all theological interpretation must recognize Scripture as primary and honor the traditional creeds and teachings of the Church universal.  Unfortunately, many of the theological positions and the social justice actions of the Women's Division identified in Our Basis for Concern move outside the parameters of these two essential guideposts. 

5. Left-Leaning Political/Social Action: The Women's Division claims faithfulness to the Discipline, the Scriptures and the needs of women, children and youth under this charge.  However, a review of the multiple actions on the part of the Division as listed in Our Basis for Concern does not bear this out.  Instead we see, repeatedly, a very narrow, partisan, leftist view on political and social issues about which Christians actually hold varying perspectives. 

Contrary to the claim in the Information Packet, "left-leaning" is not so difficult to define when one views the anti-American, anti-free market system, pro-socialist, pro-radical feminist policies, programs and actions of the Women's Division.  Such a narrow, biased worldview does not represent that of most United Methodists, and smacks of elitism when such views refuse honest examination by the constituency of United Methodist Women.

6. Autonomy/Accountability Issue: This category is addressed in the Information Packet by appealing again to the March 2002 statement by the Administrative Committee, and by the February 2003 "Responsively Yours" column.  These two sources were evaluated above. 

Closing Remarks:

RENEW is pleased to see the Women's Division finally put their response to the Call for Reform into a single Information Packet.  We are also pleased to know that the pressure upon the Women's Division to answer very real charges has been sufficient to draw the Division from entrenchment to engagement of the issues. 

It is interesting that the main focus of the Division's effort was defense of their financial support of questionable organizations. This would seem to identify the area of funding as the one of greatest concern to the Women's Division. This suggests that we must give more serious consideration to designated over undesignated giving.

RENEW appreciates the faithful commitment of United Methodist women and men to the Call for Reform, and for the courageous stand many have taken.  It is not easy to question the status quo--nor to question boards and agencies that have long gone unchallenged.  However, the cause of Christ and the importance of providing viable women's ministries is well worth our effort.