Report by press representative of Renew Network

The Women's Division states the Purpose of United Methodist Women is: “…to know God and to experience freedom as whole persons through Jesus Christ; to develop a creative, supportive fellowship; and to expand concepts of mission through participation in the global ministries of the church.”  In Paragraph 1317 of the Book of Discipline, it says that the Women’s Division "…shall interpret the purpose of United Methodist Women," and, goes on to add that they  "…shall be an advocate for the oppressed and dispossessed with special attention to the needs of women and children…."

To know God, foster fellowship and participate in global missions is a fairly balanced statement of purpose.  Unfortunately, that balance was not observable at the Fall 2002 board meeting.  The Women’s Division is heavily involved in political lobbying for peace and justice.  It is my observation that most of their programs are designed to promote a radical left political/social interpretation of what is necessary to bring about the goal of peace and justice. If this is the interpretation the Division offers for United Methodist Women, it is questionable. 

Report of the Deputy General Secretary/Joyce Sohl
Ms. Sohl’s report was an expose' on “Peace.”   She gave several definitions of peace from the dictionary as well as the Hebrew understanding of shalom and peace as a gift of Jesus.  Rightly, she stated that peace is not an existence without tension, conflict, suffering or pain, but often comes through these very things.     The main theme of her message was that there is a "cycle of peace."  It begins with the gift of peace and moves to the work of justice, which creates peace in the world.  She used James 3:18, Psalm 85:10 and 2 Peter 3:13-14.  She substituted the word “justice” for "righteousness" in all three texts.  It is at this point that her report became another call for social action.  In her own words, “Peacemaking is the justice work that God calls us to do.”  Jesus' ministry was characterized in social terms of racism, sexism, improper use of wealth, health and manipulating law.  She tied inner peace to self-acceptance and stated that it is hard to feel God’s peace when, “rejection or hatred of others, guilt, fears and anxieties” are present.  Later in her report, she quoted Muriel Lester's definition of peacemakers, “to find God in everything and everyone.”

Sohl then turned to denouncing, in her words, “the so called  war on terrorism, suppression of civil rights, and the continued war on Iraq.”  We had learned earlier that day in a talk given by Shayana Kadiilal from the Center of Constitutional Rights that the suppression of civil rights she referenced are the rights of captured Taliban and Al Qaeda operatives.  Sohl seemed unable to conceive of a world where oppression is dealt with head on.  She called for peace in Iraq--a peace that she defined primarily as the absence of our military involvement.  But, she said nothing about peace for the people on whom Saddam has waged traditional and chemical warfare.  She said nothing about peace for the Iraqi people who must live under the evil oppression of Saddam’s regime, as did the  Afghanis under the Taliban. But then of course, what is evil when one can “find God in everything and everyone.” 
It is interesting that the very means by which the world has been able to overthrow oppression are the same means that Ms. Sohl stands so confidently against.  The plain fact that it has been, and continues to be, necessary for the United States to provide vigorous leadership--one that includes military options to overthrow oppression--seems to elude Sohl.  Pacifists continue to find innocent motives for aggressors like the Taliban and Saddam Hussein, while ignoring the horrible atrocities they perpetrate on those unfortunate enough to live under their regimes.  At the same time, Ms. Sohl and the Women’s Division find the United States’ talk of liberty and freedom for people under the regimes of oppression and terrorism as mere rhetoric due to their own perceived "real" motive of unrestrained economic greed.

Sohl stated that the American people are beginning to speak up because they do not want war.  She predicted that they would go to the ballot box in November and let their desire for peace and non-violence be known.  Again, she was wrong, for the American people have voted supporting the President's agenda and returning the Senate and House to his party.  This brings up an interesting point.  Is the Women’s Division so out of touch with the reality of dealing with the problems of our time that they have become irrelevant?  Does anyone listen to them?

Sohl ended her talk with a quote from Dietrich Bonnhoeffer in which he asks, “How does peace come about?  Through a system of political treatises?  Through the investment of international capital in different countries? Or through universal, peaceful rearmament in order to guarantee peace?" She then gave his answer, "Through none of these for the single reason that all of them confuse peace with safety.  Peace is the great venture.  It can never be safe.  Peace is the opposite of security.  Peace must be dared.”  What does this mean to her?  She called for voting to take place, protests to be made, debate to continue, letters to be written, resolutions to be adopted, government officials to be called and personal fears to be overcome.  Certainly we should respond in this manner, but, when has that ever been enough?  She called upon women not to confuse safety with peace.  She left us with the idea that we should not fear acts of violence (such as unprovoked terrorist attacks?) for they may have to be dared that “peaceful” means to a solution might be advanced.  She missed the very point that Bonnhoeffer makes, namely that it is not through these things that peace comes, but that peace comes when we dare to meet oppression and evil and call for its end. 

Membership & Organizational Development  Report

I attended  the plenary session of this section and the morning subcommittee session on Leadership Development and  Nominations.  These  sessions were very routine. After a worship 
time which centered on longing for community and knowing our neighbor, Delores Garcia shared a story about a gathering of women in Mexico where the upper class arrived in airplanes, 
the middle class in automobiles, the working class on public transport, and the indigenous Indians on foot.  That was followed by a power point introduction of the staff.

I found the report on a recent mission trip to Russia very interesting.  Among others, Jeannie Banks and Diane Vogler attended.  They reported that Bruce Weaver works with the Methodist Church of Russia.  The women have formed an association referred to as United Methodist Women in Russia.  They consulted the constitutions and bylaws of the Women’s Division and Church Women United.  They used only what they deemed appropriate for them.  They will not become a part of the Women’s Division officially.

Cheryl Hemmerle gave a report on the work with young women.  She shared that since 1996 they have been targeting teen and college women.  She estimated there were 10,000 teen and college Methodist women, and another 50,000 women between the ages of 18-39.  They want to reach and 

train both these groups and have proposed regional schools to specifically target and train women 18-39 who do not go to college. They plan to partner with District Leadership Development. They are concerned to find ways for groups of college women to stay together from semester to semester.  They want to find teen and college women to serve as consultants perhaps as a group to the Women’s Division. Two things to look for would be the newspaper for young women which will come out in January, May and September, and a new book entitled Conduct Becoming A Woman, due out by Christmas.  Finally, Hemmerle called for the tearing down of any barriers that would separate women.  We should include, embrace and walk with all women.  She identified five channels of undesignated giving: love, compassion, justice, hope, peace.

Hea Sun Kim reported on the work with Korean Women.  There was a new National Training project where 40 Korean Women were targeted in connection with UMCOR in South Carolina.  They stressed the connectional link and undesignated giving.  She reported that an undesignated $12,000 was collected by the 40 women as well as $750.00 for the Sega Brown Depot.  (Sega Brown ran an orphanage during the Civil War.)  One of their future dreams is to publish two books about Korean women who have immigrated.  A book on theology has been chosen for the Korean Reading Program.  She did not name it.  Kim did report that the Korean women wanted something more spiritual from the WD, so she gave a retreat on “Preparing for Death.”  In it they wrote wills, obituaries and planned their funeral services.  She indicated that many left money to the Women’s Division in their wills.

Magda Morales is a consultant to the work with Hispanic women.  She reported  9,000 Spanish Language Coordinators attended the Pacific Regional School in Colorado.  There will be a training event this December.  She says there is a great expansion of Hispanic women in United Methodism.  The Upper Room is now available in Spanish.

Christian Social Responsibility

Susie Johnson, Executive Secretary for Public Policy, gave a report to the committee on justice.  It included three Action Alerts.  “A Few Lonely Voices of Dissent” deals with the proposed war on Iraq.  This Alert called for a peaceful resolution to the crisis, supporting the stand of the National Council of Churches and the United Methodist Women’s Resolution. Only the opinions of legislators who oppose the war, such as Texas representative Ron Paul, Senator Byrd, Congressman Jim McDermott, David E Bonior and Mike Thompson, were referenced. 

Johnson claimed that Saddam is not an immediate danger since the Iraqi military is a great deal weaker now than it was.  (I am sure  we are  relieved to hear this given the serious  international threat the nations of the world perceive Iraq to be.)  Johnson called for the lifting of economic sanctions, and for Iraq to be given another chance to comply with weapons inspectors.  She put forward the idea that Saddam will only use weapons of mass destruction on us if we strike first.

 The Action Alert, “Welfare Reform and Child Well-being,” calls for the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) reauthorization.  TANF funds have declined since the 1996 Welfare Reform Act that enabled many recipients to enter the work force.  This entering the work force and leaving the welfare rolls is not seen by this Action Alert to be a positive development.  On the one hand, it acknowledges that the poverty rate for children living with family members is the lowest since 1979 and has decreased substantially since 1993 from 22 percent to 16 percent.  This Alert claims that standards of living for children have not been substantially raised.  It shows no correlation between the availability of additional welfare funds and benefit to children.  It does cite research that shows poverty has a detrimental effect on children.  The question remains whether additional welfare funds and the reauthorization of TANF would benefit children.  If these funds were inadequate before the reforms of 1996, what is there to show they will address the need today?

The last Action Alert deals with Child Labor.  It states, “Children’s work needs to be seen as happening along a continuum, with destructive or exploitative work at one end and beneficial work--promoting or enhancing children’s development without interfering with their schooling, reaction and rest--at the other."  Most of this alert deals with the issue of destructive or exploitative work.  It voices concern that children working on farms are not covered by the law and are allowed by the Fair Labor Standards Act to work in hazardous conditions as young as 16.

In addition to these alerts, Ms. Johnson spoke of other concerns that included the "3 Strikes" law, which is before the Supreme Court, as well as Affirmative Action.  She supported continued Affirmative Action.  She was not in favor of the "3 Strikes" law, finding it too harsh and citing an example where an offender was going to prison for life for three frivolous offences.  It was not  mentioned that this law was intended to deal with the problem of repeat offenders of violent crimes.  The current parole system does not always provide protection against repeat murderers, rapists, armed-robbers, etc.  No concern was voiced for protecting victims from these crimes.  The major concern was for the rights of these criminals.

Ms. Johnson voiced great concern about President Bush's "Faith Based Initiative."  She stated that the Administration was lowering the barriers for faith based organizations.  In actuality, I believe these barriers that religious organizations are concerned about have to do with the federal government’s ability to require an FBO to hire anyone, regardless of conflict of interest.  The proposed changes would address the FBO's concern that they would be required to "water down" their standards in order to receive funds.  Susie Johnson showed concern that this would empower groups that have a traditional orthodox understanding of faith.  She stated an organization will not have to be a 501C3 (tax exempt status) in order to receive Faith Based Money.   Johnson also reported that the Department of Interior is considering a Marriage Proposal supported by President Bush.  This proposal, as she conveyed it, would strengthen the traditional family and marriage between one man and one woman.  Johnson indicated this was a development that was  troubling and would have to be watched.  It was given no endorsement or praise.

Theological Concerns
In her committee report, Mrs. Guinevere P. Gregory of Pittsburgh, PA, a Director of the Women's Division, stated that a United Methodist pastor had reported that in one of our seminaries they were teaching the Trinity, "Father, Son and Holy Spirit."  (When I questioned her, she could not tell me the name of the pastor who made the allegation or the name of the seminary or the name of the professor.)  A professor in this seminary had told his students that the UM Church could only ordain and baptize in the name of The Father, Son and Holy Spirit.  She was very disturbed and stated that the WD would have to keep an eye on this.  After her report, I went directly to her to inquire why she was concerned about the teaching of the Trinity.  She said, "You know yourself that no one can tell you what to call God."  She went on to say that everyone has the right to call God what she chooses.  "It is the same with marriage vows.  Today, we write our own vows.  We decide what we will vow in marriage.  No one tells us what to vow."   She went on to state that this was the basis for the "Words that Hurt and Words that Heal" booklet.  Gregory indicated that it is hurtful, particularly to women, when they are limited by traditional names for God.

Conclusion
One would assume that a group purporting to represent over one million women of a major Christian denomination would have foremost concern about promoting the Christian gospel and opposing the persecution of Christians in our world.  Yet, there is a multicultural bias that seems to pervade all the issues taken up by the Women’s Division.  They seem to champion all points of view, political and religious, save that of Israel, capitalism (free market systems) and traditional Christian perspective.  As Americans, they indulge themselves in self hate, finding the United States and its economic and political success the underlying cause of oppression and want in other countries.  For all their talk of oppression around the world, there is a conspicuous absence of concern for oppressed Christian minorities in Muslim and totalitarian countries. 

The Division shows great concern for the release of the Taliban in Guantanamo; for the civil rights of those who go through security checks for air travel, especially people of Middle Eastern descent; and  for those  who have  been  detained  who  illegally  reside  in  this country. Where is their concern for the policies that will prevent another major terrorist attack in this country, and, for that matter, in countries abroad?

When it comes to the complicated problem of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, again the Women's Division has taken a radical stand, referring to Israel as the "Occupation of Palestine."  Their condemnation is reserved solely for Israeli aggression.  They are conspicuously silent in calling for a stop of all Palestinian suicide and other bombings and the taking of innocent civilian lives.

For years the Division has been radically pro-abortion, affirming Clinton's veto of the Partial Birth Abortion Ban.  Where are the programs for abstinence and sexual purity?  I believe it is just a matter of time before we will see the Women's Division endorse an expanded definition of marriage.  Why would any Christian oppose legislation that would strengthen traditional marriage, when there is overwhelming documented research that shows the benefits of such for adults, children and society at large?

 Recently, I spoke with one of my elected officials about the lobbing presence of the Women's Division in Washington DC.  I wanted him to know that the WD did not represent the political views of the vast majority of women in the pews of the UMC.  He stated that he was glad to know that the Division's position on the issues was not shared by all United Methodist women.  He had taken notice that on almost every issue, the WD held "a far left" position--a position that for many is contrary to mainstream Christian belief.

There will always be a need for salt and light in the church and in society at large.  People of faith should hold themselves, the church and the society accountable to the claims of Christ.  No earthly system is perfect in this life.  We should seek reform at all levels.  The direction and leadership of the Women's Division should be a concern for all United Methodist women.  It continues to be outside the mainstream of both the theological and political persuasion of must UM women.  The Division's interpretation of the Purpose of United Methodist Women is neither mainstream or balanced.  The women of the United Methodist Church should reject and reform the policies and social justice mission mandate of the Women's Division.