The April 2003 board meeting of the Women’s Division of the United Methodist Church heralded a recommitment to the primary mission of social justice to the oppressed of the world.  This bold recommitment was forthcoming despite the Call to Reform that has come from both within and beyond the renewal organizations of the United Methodist Church.  The anti-war theme remained strongly evident, even in the wake of the success of the war in the liberation of the Iraqi people.

Birmingham provided a backdrop to the Women’s Division’s ongoing work in civil rights and racism.  A third major theme emerging from this meeting was children’s public education (as opposed to private), identified as the Campaign for Children–Phase III.  The Bush Administration's No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 would be the subject of much discussion and debate, especially as it related to assessment testing and improvement requirements for under-performing schools.  The Bush economic stimulus package and budget proposals were also a concern at this meeting because, in the view of those leading discussion, it will result in decreased funding for various social programs that affect the less fortunate, particularly women, children and youth.

A large part of this meeting was spent developing resolutions for General Conference 2004, along with other recommendations.  The resolutions are illustrative of the Women's Division's commitment to social justice.  Resolutions covered the following topics: (1) Responsible Parenthood; (2) Membership in Clubs or Organizations that Practice Exclusivity; (3) Environmental Justice for a Sustainable Future; (4) Environmental Racism; (5) Reparations for African-Americans; (6) Affirmative Action; (7) Biblical Language; (8) Teen Suicide; Privatization; (9) Greed; (10) Global Racism and Xenophobia; (11) In Defense of International Law and Cooperation; (12) Rape as a Crime Against Humanity; (13) Women: Equality, Development and Peace; (14) Teen Sexual Identity and Suicide Risk; (15) Compensation for Comfort Women.  (A finalized version of these resolutions should be posted to the Women's Division web site soon, http://gbgm-umc.org/umw. RENEW will request experts in the various fields of the resolutions to prepare an analysis of their content, which will be posted to our web sites, www.renewnetwork.org, and, www.call4reform.org. )

Pervading this entire agenda was a call to political advocacy at every level not only within the church but also in Washington D.C. and the United Nations.
 

Opening Remarks by Judy Nutter:

The session began with an address by Judy Nutter, Vice President and Chair of Christian Social Relations.  She is a Women's Division director from the West Virginia Conference. Ms. Nutter shared the story of the rich man in Luke 16, who implores Lazarus to go back to his relatives and warn them that their riches and luxurious living will cause them to end their lives in hell.  She also used scripture from Matthew 25:34-46 where Jesus rewards those who ministered to Him by feeding the hungry, giving drink to the thirsty, showing hospitality to the stranger, clothing the needy, healing the sick and visiting the prisoners.   Likewise, He sends into eternal fire those who did not do these things.   With this scripture as a backdrop, she commenced to decry those who stand against the advocacy policies of the Women’s Division. 

In particular, Ms. Nutter attacked the Bush Administration’s budget proposals and economic stimulus package that, in her opinion, lead to the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer.  She attacked the Bush tax cut proposals through statistics which claimed that 80% of Americans will not receive the average cut per capita of $1,083 out of a $695 billion dollar proposed cut.  However, millionaires will receive an average of $90,000.  She went on to add that 44% of people living in Mississippi would not receive a cut; 42% in Louisiana and West Virginia; and 38% in Kentucky and Oklahoma.

What Ms. Nutter did not share was that a look at the history of tax cuts simply does not confirm her grim outlook for the current proposal before Congress.  A detailed discussion of President Bush’s 2003 Tax Cut Proposal can be obtained from the Research Service of the Library of Congress.   In her report, Ms. Nutter fails to acknowledge that tax cut figures correspond to the total amount of tax that has been paid by the taxpayer.  In other words, a person does not get a cut who has not paid tax in the first place, and the cut is proportional to the amount paid. Treasury Department figures refute claims that this plan will only benefit the so-called rich.  They report that an average family of four with two wage earners and a combined income of $39,000 will receive a total of $1,100 in tax relief.  This represents a reduction of 17% for taxpayers with income under $30,000 to just over 11% for taxpayers with income over $100,000.

Ms. Nutter does not mention other benefits of this tax proposal such as the marriage penalty reduction and the increase in the child tax credit.  The misrepresentation or limited representation of information to the women of the United Methodist Church is typical and irresponsible.  The women of the church should ask themselves if this kind of partisan politics should be the business of United Methodist Women.

Nutter claimed that Bush’s proposed elimination of tax on dividend income will go to the top one percent of the population and cost public funded programs, such as child care, $364 billion over 10 years.  According to Ms. Nutter, the total revenue lost would be $2.5 trillion over the next ten years. 

Currently dividends are taxed twice, which, according to Congressional Research Service of the Library of Congress, reduces economic efficiency and diverts monies to other sectors--housing being an example.  It has also been argued that this double taxation has discouraged dividend paying stocks in favor of growth stocks.  Many believe that the elimination of this double tax will be a factor in preventing corporate scandals such as in the case of Enron.  In addition, this elimination will benefit the elderly and retired population who lives on interest and dividend income. 

Ms. Nutter stated that the Bush Administration will not help the 40 states which will have a shortfall of funds between $60-$85 billion dollars.  All this will lead to deep cuts in services to children, low-income individuals and seniors, not to mention hospitals and other service centers and programs.  She went on to state that the TANF re-authorization had taken out the “reduction of poverty language” and had raised the core work requirements for individuals on welfare from 30 to 40 hours.  She inaccurately stated that time spent in education programs was no longer allowed as a part of the work requirement.

Contrary to Ms. Nutter’s figures, Bill Coffin of Health and Human Services reports that the TANF reauthorization continues to allow up to 15 hours per week of education to count as part of the work requirement.  Furthermore, education is broadly defined and can include such activities as attending a Brownie or Cub Scout meeting with your child.  Coffin reports that many women have benefited from the incentives of TANF which have resulted in improvement to their level of education and their job skills. 

Ms. Nutter reported that President Bush was pushing appropriations bills through the Senate and the House during this time when the war had the attention of the country.  She called for the women to adopt “God Priorities” which she equated with the opposition to all tax cuts and appropriations to fund the war.   This was to be done in the spirit of representing “the least of these.”

Later in the CSR meeting it was voted to send a copy of Ms. Nutter’s remarks to all Christian Social Action Coordinators with a request that they contact their Senators (both state and national) and House Representatives to lobby against all of the Administration’s budget proposals, appropriations and tax cuts.  An Action Alert to this effect will be posted to the Women's Division web site immediately. The committee hopes to get all board members and as many UM women as possible to join their voices to this lobbying effort.  The board subsequently adopted this proposal.

The Campaign for Children – Phase II: Public Education 

The CSR meeting began very creatively.  Julie Taylor, Executive Secretary for Children, Youth and Family Advocacy, passed out a 5th grade assessment test and everyone was asked to take it.  We were then given about a minute to take each of four sections.  The frustration of this exercise was evident in the laughter and moaning of the group. This was followed by a panel of four African-American students from the Birmingham schools who came to share their experience of standardized testing.  A school volunteer, Mary Jones, who is a member of the Church of the Reconciler, accompanied them.

Ms. Jones began by sharing her experience as a volunteer tutor.  She reported that many children who cannot read on grade level are made to feel bad about themselves.  She believed that good teachers and principals were essential to addressing the problem of low performing students, but in her opinion they were often part of the problem.  She told of one young person who was an "A" student. This student was given the answers to a test by his teacher and subsequently accused of cheating.  I believe she told this story to illustrate the pressure that testing creates for teachers as well as students.

The panel of students was all female and consisted of high school and elementary age students.   None of the students actually “liked” taking tests.  One student shared that standardized tests made her nervous, but her teacher had told her to do her best.  She said, "Nothing can stop me from doing my best.”  Another said that she had not liked tests when she was younger, but that they had become easier as she grew older.  One of the women asked the students how they felt if they did not pass the tests.  The high school student said that she would be disappointed but would work harder next time.   The students were asked what their favorite subjects were and if they were on the tests.  An elementary student said she liked spelling and math, but they were not on the tests. A question from the floor asked, “Are these tests useful to you?”  Both high school students indicated that they were useful, saying, “We need to take them to see what we know.”  And, “They test your knowledge and let you know what you have to do.”  Both high school students said that counselors were available if they “froze up” or needed skills in test taking.

 Keith Butcher, brother of Judy Nutter, is Assistant Director for the Office of Instructional Services of the West Virginia Department of Education.  Mr. Butcher gave a very helpful presentation of the Bush Administration’s No Child Left Behind Education Act of 2001.  The reforms he discussed centered on Title I schools, which are low performing schools.  This program has set the goal that all students must be proficient by the school year 2013-2014.

 Mr. Butcher did an excellent job of presenting the basic components of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001.  NCLB sets standards of performance for schools and holds them accountable through scientifically based instructional strategies, testing and implemented improvement plans. Improvement plans include parental notification that the school is not meeting set standards; professional development of teachers; technical assistance from LEA (Local Education Authority) and SEA (State Education Authority); offering students in low performing schools public school choice through transfer to other public schools within the district; providing supplemental services.  If after four years, a school does not meet “Adequate Yearly Progress,” then the bill prescribes corrective action.  If a school does not improve after these actions are taken, then it can be turned over to alternative governance.

 Mr. Butcher acknowledged that much of the money that had been thrown at education had not helped, but he also contended that NCLB prescribed a plan for improvement, but provided no funds to schools to reach its goals.  He was particularly concerned that individual schools and districts that are targeted for improvement have no way to attract the best teachers and that this needs to be addressed.  While he agreed with some of the goals of NCLB he did not agree with “How We Get There.”  It is my opinion that much of his criticism of the bill has to do with the fact that it emanated from the Bush Administration.  He accused Bush of co-opting Marion Wright Edelman’s Leave No Child Behind bill and movement.  David Hornbeck, President of International Youth Federation

The second speaker to address Public Education was David Hornbeck, President of International Youth Federation and staff member of the Children’s Defense Fund.  Dr. Hornbeck stated that he believed that with will and resolve, all children can achieve at high levels.  He gave a brief history of education legislation.  He made the point that both preschool, particularly Head Start, and kindergarten give children an edge, but speaking of pre-school, thousands do not have this edge.  He went back over the basic components of NCLB adding that by 2005 all teachers must be what are termed "quality teachers," which means that they will have to have the equivalent of a master's degree.

Dr. Hornbeck tipped his political bias not only in his unreserved adulation of Marion Wright Edelman but also in his disrespectful reference to former President Bush as “George the First.”  He made it clear that he was not a supporter of the current President, but went on to say that basically his No Child Left Behind Education Act was a leap forward even though, in his words, it is a “mixed bag.”

Hornbeck pointed out that the Bush bill calls for high standards to be met not just for white males, but for all children.  This is accomplished though the requirement of desegregated data that, according to Hornbeck, revolutionizes the things to which we must pay attention.  The concept of desegregated data does not allow a school or school district to average their successes and improvements over student groups, but instead requires that all student groups must meet the requirements.  This prevents such groups as certain low income, ethnic minority students from being overlooked or undertargeted.
Dr. Hornbeck did believe that the bill had major flaws, underfunding being the most important.  He claimed that $1.5 billion was simply not enough money to make this bill effective in leveling the playing field for all students.  He said that the challenge comes if a school or district does not have the capacity to help low performing students due to lack of funds.  Then the accountability system becomes unjust.  Secondly, he acknowledged that education is best provided at the local level, stating, “How education is delivered ought to be the province of the people closest to the child."  But he went on to state that when essential issues are given to the states to administer, many state departments of education are simply not able to “make it happen.”  They turn over the requirements for equitable and adequate standards to the local districts in the name of local control.  He claimed this does not work.

Both speakers called for advocacy and involvement of the Women's Division and local United Methodist Women.  Dr. Hornbeck’s plea for advocacy was the most emboldened and passionate.  He said that faith communities have traditionally used three ministries to address these needs.  The first was preaching and the priestly ministry.  In this, he thought faith communities did a fairly good job.  The second was the pastoral service ministry.  Thirdly, and most needed from the Women's Division, was the prophetic tradition.  This he illustrated by the prophets of the Old Testament and Jesus in the temple with the moneychangers. 

Dr. Hornbeck called for the Women's Division to organize the women of the United Methodist Church in the same manner as the National Rifle Association.  The NRA can generate thousands of emails, calls and letters in a very short period of time, he said.  He called for this advocacy to speak with ONE voice, sending a grassroots message that would not be satisfied until a critical mass, or 60% of all Americans in all parts of the United States, demanded a “Good Schools” program.  He called for this program to be modeled after the “Good Schools Pennsylvania” program that was spearheaded by Marion Wright Edelman.

Dr. Hornbeck said that we cannot depend upon the courts, but just like the poor widow who petitioned the unjust judge until he gave her what she wanted in order to get rid of her, advocacy, when it has achieved critical mass of public opinion, can effect change.  Hornbeck believes the courts have demonstrated that they will respond to public pressure and that you can achieve “a change of behavior if not a change of heart.”

Both speakers and the Women's Division staff made it clear to the directors that the women of the church must be made aware of the differences between Marion Edelman’s Leave No Child Behind and Bush’s No Child Left Behind education bills.  It is quite clear that the Bush plan is to be rejected and Edelman’s to be promoted.

 Julie Taylor, Executive Secretary for Children, Youth and Family Advocacy, presented an excellent film by Dateline's Bob McKeown on video game violence and its availability to children and youth.  The film presented clips from the games King Pin, Grand Theft Auto, Soldier of Fortune and others.  Their content was graphically violent and sexually exploitative in some cases.  The link between violent video playing and violence acted out was discussed.  A recommendation issued that the Women's Division endorse H.R. 669, Protect Children from Video Game Sex and Violence Act, and provide written confirmation so as to influence members of Congress. 

 This recommendation, unlike so many others, was non-partisan and can be supported by women of all political persuasions.  It represents the kind of advocacy that is needed.  Other recommendations from the Committee on Social Responsibility included:

•  That the Women’s Division endorse H.R. 236, Student Bill of Rights, and provide official notification to Representative Chaka Fattah of the Philadelphia area of Pennsylvania so that it can be added to his website list of endorsements;

•  That the Women’s Division endorse H.R. 936/s. 448, Leave No Child Behind Act, and be added to the list of those who support both the Act and the Movement of  Leave No Child Behind.
  (This should not be confused with the Bush "No Child Left Behind" Education Act which has already passed.  Marion Wright Edelman and The Children's Defense Fund sponsor the supported legislation. The Senate bill is co-sponsored by Senators Hillary Clinton and Edward Kennedy, among others.  It calls for additional federal funding for many health, education and welfare programs.  These bills can be pulled up on the Senate and House websites for a complete list.)

• That the Women’s Division explore inviting Michael Moore to present and discuss the making of his award-winning film Bowling for Columbine to the Women’s Division.

(Several staff and directors had seen the film and thought it was an excellent documentary about the causes of fear and violence in the United States. One younger director cautioned against showing the film because of its controversial nature.)

Many will remember Michael Moore was booed at the Academy Awards in March 2003 when he accepted the award for best documentary and used the podium to decry and malign President Bush and the war in Iraq. Moore stated in his acceptance speech, “We like nonfiction and we live in fictitious times.  We live in a time where fictitious election results give us a fictitious president.  We live in a time where we have a man sending us to war for fictitious reasons, whether it's the fictition of duct tape, or the fictition of orange alerts.  We are against this war, Mr. Bush! Shame on you, Mr. Bush!  Shame on you!” 

Bowling for Columbine, in Moore’s own words, is about a culture of violence and its connection to global violence. Moore draws a parallel between a Lockheed factory in Littleton and the Columbine shootings.  He states that the Lockheed factory manufactures, “weapons of mass destruction.” This is factually misleading. Forbes Magazine reports that Lockheed Martin’s plant in Littleton does not make weapon systems much less “weapons of mass destruction,” but instead makes space launch vehicles for TV satellites. 

 Moore’s documentary asks why so many Americans kill each other with guns and explores why they feel they need to be armed.  Moore answers this question in several ways.  Early in the film, he presents a revisionist history of the United States.  Using a “South Park” style cartoon made by animator Harold Moss, Moore suggests that our country was born out of fear. 

The story goes something like this.  The pilgrims came to America because they were afraid of being persecuted.  What happens? They encounter the Indians and are afraid of them, so they kill them.  Then they start becoming afraid of each other and start seeing witches and burn them.  They then win the revolution, but are afraid the British are going to come back.  So someone writes the Second Amendment so they can keep their guns. And then the white Americans become afraid that they may have to work, so they go to Africa and kidnap the black man and bring him back to do their work for them.  When the black slaves begin to outnumber the white man, rebellions begin to occur. So in 1836 Samuel Colt invents the six-shooter…and on and on. 

 The message Moore is sending is best understood in his own words,  “And that my friends, is the real point of this film that I just got an Oscar for–how those in charge use FEAR to manipulate the public into doing whatever they are told.”

 Why this outlandish focus upon such fictitious fear?  For one who claims to prefer nonfiction, this revisionist concoction departs the nonfiction category.  One must ask, is evil real, or just a construct of those who would manipulate us for their own power hungry needs.  Perhaps the real question should be who is doing the manipulating in Bowling for Columbine?

   The title of this film is a reference to the bowling class that the Columbine killers were scheduled for, but skipped, the morning they committed the Columbine murders. The police say they skipped their bowling class that morning.  In the film, Moore interviews Marilyn Manson, the controversial rock star whom the shooters were known to have admired.  Many, including Senator Joe Lieberman, tied the shooting to the violence that Manson promotes in his music.  Moore puts forth the idea in the film that Manson had no more influence on the two boys than did their bowling class. In the film, Bowling for Columbine, Moore asked Manson if he thought his music had inspired the shootings. Moore said of Manson’s denial, "I was stunned to see that he ended up saying probably the most intelligent things in the film." 

So what is Michael Moore telling us?  That the presence of a manufacturing plant in the community of Littleton (never mind his misrepresentation) had more influence on two high school young men, than the violent message of Marilyn Manson?  Would Moore have us believe the message of Manson is as morally neutral as a bowling class?

I have included this commentary on the Bowling for Columbine movie because most United Methodist Women will not see the movie.  Many of those who do see it will not be familiar with the sick nihilist message of Marilyn Manson. For more information, you may go to the web site of Marilyn Manson and read  the message he sends our young people. This message pedals sex, sodomy, drugs, suicide and killing, not to mention very disturbing anti-religious messages to young people and especially disenfranchised youth. 

But even more importantly, the message of Michael Moore does an injustice to the central important question, namely, why tragedies like the Columbine shootings occur.  Michael Moore appears to be blind to the real societal issues that need our attention--issues of breakdown of family life, the failure of marriages, the failure of the church to communicate faith and love just to name a few.  He should consider the dangerous messages being pedaled to children and youth by Hollywood and the entertainment industry--an industry that refuses to monitor itself or impose any limits of good taste, much less good sense--and who mocks those who do with films like Bowling for Columbine. Violence in the entertainment industry is discounted by Moore all the while he hypocritically blames the legitimate need and right under the Constitution to be prepared militarily to defend real liberty. Giving Hollywood a pass and decrying guns does not solve the real problem of violence in our society.

It is deeply disturbing that this controversial film and its hypocritical message resonate so with the Women’s Division staff and directors.  The fact that the board voted even to “explore” a dialog with Michael Moore, and would consider showing this film, speaks volumes of their radical political position on issues of social justice. It also is a reminder that the Women's Division moves in a highly controversial political and social arena, one that takes the mission of United Methodist Women even further afield of its true purpose. 

Additional Board Actions

 Another prominent theme at the board meeting was anti-racism. Birmingham was chosen for the spring 2003 meeting because it was thought to be instructional especially, in the words of Jeanie Banks, for those who live in the North.  A tour of the Civil Rights Museum was planned for Sunday afternoon.  This was a very worthwhile event for everyone who attended.  The museum has many excellent exhibits that tell the story of the Civil Rights Movement and the history of the black race in this country.

   Many of the women could remember the news stories that told of Rosa Parks, Martin Luther King and other civil rights leaders.  Actual television footage as well as newspaper articles chronicled the story along with commentary and other film.  The experience was a reminder of the real plight of the black man just forty years ago.  Over and above the difficulties and tragedy portrayed, the exhibits celebrated the many accomplishments of black men, women and children in every field. These people persevered through a time in our history when civility between the races was at an incredibly low point.  Their faith in God, their suffering and commitment to change for the betterment of all of society was inspiring.

 The museum was also a testimony to just how far our society has come since the days of the early civil rights movement.  It is commendable that a city like Birmingham has built this museum and told this story.  Significant strides have been made in the hearts of men as well as in the laws of our land. But the museum also reminds us that we still have work to do. 

 The Women’s Division voted on several resolutions for General Conference 2004 addressing what they see as ongoing serious racism issues.  As with almost all social solutions put forward by the Women’s Division, the problem is not a matter of the church dealing with real issues of racism that need our attention, but rather HOW we are to identify and deal with these issues.  The Division wants to narrowly define both the issues and the answers.

The most controversial of the proposed resolutions on racism will be #56, supporting reparations for African-Americans.  This resolution calls for the United Methodist Church to support H.R. 40, a bill submitted by John Conyers that calls for a commission to be set up to study reparations to African-Americans for the injustice and inhumanity done them from 1619 to the present.  This is an extreme proposal. Many argue that reparations will not address the problem of racism or advance civil rights.  In fact, the encouragement of the notion of reparations may do more to widen the gulf between the races.  Although this concept has received some press attention, even the news media has tended to see it as an outrageous and divisive proposal. The Women's Division passed out several pages of letters from United Methodists on both sides of this issue that has been received by the United Methodist News Service.  They are prepared for the opposition that will come at General Conference 2004.  Directors raised not one objection to this resolution. 

Joyce D. Sohl’s report restated the Women’s Division anti-war position.  Ms. Sohl expressed a passionately held view that is her own, and is seemingly representative of the Women’s Division staff and directors.  This view holds that all war, under all circumstances, is basically against Christian teaching in the New Testament.  This perspective finds no moral grounds in the pages of the Old or New Testament to justify military action, even in the face of imminent danger, threat or the atrocities that we see verified with each new day of Operation Iraqi Freedom and its aftermath.

Ms. Sohl calls for protest as seen in the Acts of the Apostles. She believes it is our duty to debate the rightness/wrongness of the war. She calls for intercessory prayer. Finally she calls us to exercise compassion and love, with Jesus being our example: loving our enemies; doing good to those who hurt or harm us; turning the other cheek; walking the extra mile.  She says that nothing is impossible with God--that He can change the hearts of those who brutalize their fellow human beings.  She quotes John Dear in Living in Peace, “If we cannot love Saddam Hussein, or any other government leader, we cannot love anyone.  What does it mean to love Saddam Hussein? It means nonviolently resisting the U.S. Government's plan to kill him and his people, and the likewise challenging him to stop his own oppressive violence…." 
She closed by saying: “I am a concerned Christian and a concerned American as are all of us in this room.  I am convinced that as both, I must protest this war as I feel God is calling me to do. I must join my prayers with those prayers of persons of faith around the world for peace, justice and mercy; and I must show the compassion and love for God’s children as did Jesus the Christ.  May God give to each of us the strength to do what we must!”

 Unfortunately, Ms. Sohl's entire presentation, and that of others at the Women's Division meeting, focused on one position only--an anti-war position, despite the fact that the majority of Americans support war on terrorism and the liberation of Iraq. The narrowness of the Women's Division view is imposed upon all, with no education or information from another perspective.  There is no genuine room for informed choice.  The proof-texting and quoting of the sayings of Jesus failed to recall that Jesus Himself foretold  coming "wars and rumors of war."  The application of scriptural texts meant for individual relationships to international affairs does not fit the total witness of scripture or the Christian understanding of governance. 

The same Sunday of Ms. Sohl's address, 1986 Nobel Peace Prize laureate Elie Wiesel said, “If some European countries put as much pressure on Saddam Hussein as on (President) Bush, there would have been no war…Saddam Hussein had to be disarmed.  There were no other means.”   Could this failure to put pressure on a harsh dictator be applied to Ms. Sohl and the Women’s Division?  Where were the resolutions and Action Alerts calling for Iraqi cooperation with weapons inspectors?  Where was the concern for the rights of the Iraqi people?  Where was the outrage for the people who lived in poverty while Saddam lived lavishly by any standard.  Why did not the Women's Division speak up for those who had been tortured for questioning Saddam’s decisions, not to mention those who were gassed and otherwise lost their lives?

Last fall at the October board meeting, the Women’s Division heard speakers from the Center for Constitutional Rights  and the World Council of Churches. They saw what they called, the emerging "hegemony" of the United States, as the greatest danger to world peace.  These voices were added to Ms. Sohl’s and other staff members and officers in a diatribe of anti-American rhetoric.  The United States, its consumption of resources and our free market economic system were portrayed as the evils to be stood against.  Conversely, while Ms. Sohl was making her address in Birmingham, liberated Iraqi citizens took to the streets cheering and applauding our troops and thanking Bush by name.  In the days that followed, many stories would emerge that testified to atrocities and very real biological and nuclear capabilities of the regime.  The world watched while the Iraqi people themselves pulled down statues and burned pictures of their dictator.  And yet, Ms. Sohl held tenaciously to an anti-war position that even some of the staunchest Bush detractors have abandoned.

More of this same anti-war, "shame on America" rhetoric was present in the remarks of Lois Dauway, Assistant General Secretary, CSR, at another session.  Ms. Dauway borrowed the words of Langston Hughes “Let America be the America it used to be” and Senator Byrd’s remarks on the senate floor that he weeps for this country because her image has changed.  She adds their words to her own to say that America’s essence is in danger of being lost, and the world has become a more dangerous place.  She is concerned that our cold war doctrines have been thrown out for a doctrine of pre-emptive war.  She is concerned that the United States has gone overboard in its effort to prevent terrorism.  They have done this by passing the Patriot Act which, in her opinion, gives excessive powers to the justice department for the surveillance of suspected terrorists; sees political activities as terrorist activities; and denies non-citizens due process under the law.  She finds America in the role of “Gun Slinger” and shows concern that she is getting used to the presence of soldiers with AK 47s in Washington, D.C.  She voices the self-hate that is all too present in the liberal assessment in the aftermath of September 11--blaming our own country for the unsolicited attack and our need to address perceived real issues of terrorism and oppression in our world.

Ms. Sohl, Ms. Dauway and the Women’s Division call for protest.  United Methodists should protest injustice and oppression.  But, in a conflict between the free world and an oppressive regime, where should we direct our protest?  Should that protest not be directed at the repressive regime itself, rather than, as in the case of the Women’s Division, at the Administration who takes on that regime?

It is right to call for prayer.  We rejoice that many prayers have been answered.  We can thank God that the projected casualty figures of the United Nations that appear on the UMW web page  have simply not occurred.

It is also correct that we need to exercise love and compassion. We can be thankful that the U.S. military was able to target their objectives with the smallest loss of innocent civilian life ever recorded in a major conflict.  One wonders had our congress and our military heeded past lobbying efforts of the Women’s Division to restrict funding of our military and its weapons programs if these “smart weapons” would have been developed.

The war in Iraq is drawing to a close.  While there is much yet to do to establish a truly free Iraq, the anti-war detractors look more irrelevant with each day. The Women's Division continues to hold to their anti-American and anti-war position.  Do they speak for the women of the church?  If not, should UMW groups continue to support these efforts with undesignated funds?

Since the early sixties the Women's Division has been committed to an activist position which they share with the National Council of Churches, the World Council of Churches and numerous other left-leaning political and social organizations. They have been notably involved in liberation movements around the world.  The Women’s Division runs a permanent office at the United Nations that has a budget of $1.5 million.  There is a proposal before the Division that would promote the work of the United Nations in the United Methodist Church in Europe partly through financial support of a United Nations Section on the UMCOR-NGO web site.   The Women's Division, in conjunction with the General Board of Global Ministries, has the largest lobbying presence in Washington D.C. of any mainline denomination. They currently lobby for issues relating to gender, sexual preference, ecology, children and others.  The resolutions that the Women’s Division will send to General Conference give ample evidence of this activist commitment.

The women of the church need to fully understand that the political position of the Women's Division is highly partisan even when it does not blatantly endorse one party over another.  The Women's Division currently lobbies against all major legislation coming from the Bush Administration.  This includes the tax cut proposals, the budget proposals, the Patriot Act, Homeland Security and, of course, the war in Iraq.  There is no attempt on the part of many in the board meetings to hide contempt for the current President of the United States.

Those who call for reform of the Women’s Division recognize that the church must be an advocate for the less fortunate of this country and the world.  But they also recognize that the mission of the church and the spread of the gospel will take more than leftist political lobbying.  The church is called to be salt and light to a fallen world. The answers are within the Gospel. The central question here is one that needs our attention. What is the Gospel to the Women’s Division?

  Ms. Sohl admonishes us to debate the issues.  Indeed we should.  The problem for many United Methodist men and women is how the Women's Division and GBGM define these issues.  It continues to be of great concern to many United Methodists that there is almost no legitimate question or debate at the Women's Division board meetings as to how social and political objectives are to be reached.  Ms. Sohl, Ms. Banks and other staff and directors made it clear that to question their interpretation of social justice--and what they consider their mandate from the women of the church--is to stand in opposition to the very Gospel itself.  Again we must ask, what is the Gospel to the Women’s Division?  Is it merely political justice as defined by the United Nations, Marion Wright Edelman, the Children’s Defense Fund and the radical Center for Constitutional Rights? 

Dallas Willard in his book Divine Conspiracy gives us some insight into how activism became a substitute for religious belief, or, as we can say of the Women’s Division, how it became their belief:

To be committed to the oppressed, to liberation, or just to "community" became for many the whole of what is essential to Christian commitment.  The Gospel, or ‘good news’ on this view, was that God himself stood behind liberation, equality and community; that Jesus died to promote them, or at least for lack of them; and that he ‘lives on’ in all efforts and tendencies favoring them.  For the theological left, simply this became the message of Christ… Total inclusivism of all beliefs and practices except oppressive ones, such as the exclusivism of traditional Christianity itself, was the natural next step. 

Willard goes on to say that this becomes a social ethic that can be shared with all people, believer and unbeliever alike.   This activist understanding of the Gospel proclaims the love of Christ in terms of social and political ideals.  So strong is this understanding of the Gospel of sold out commitment to social justice that the understanding of scripture becomes skewed.  This results in the reinterpretation of scripture in some cases and revisionist moves in others.   In turn, we are faced with real theological problems as is evidenced in the recent controversial remarks of Bishop Joseph Sprague.  This convoluted view of the Gospel becomes a huge obstacle as we interpret the mission of the church.  Programs that emerge through the church offer the hurting and oppressed no more than a secular understanding of equality, happiness or freedom.  The women of this denomination should not allow the mission of the United Methodist Women to be co-opted by the Women's Division for a partisan political agenda.

The life-changing, culture-altering power of transformation through Jesus Christ is exchanged for the pitiable human efforts of social reconstruction and theological revisionism.  One must ask yet again, is this the program the women of the United Methodist Church want to continue to follow and to fund?