|
Women’s
Division Fall 2003 Board of Directors Meeting
The October 2003 meeting of the Women’s Division Board of Directors marks the eve of a celebration of 135 years of work by United Methodist Women. Next year United Methodist Women will celebrate their accomplishments. There will be much to celebrate. The question before the women of the church is: “Will we continue the work of our ‘foremothers’ in spreading the Gospel of Christ around the world, meeting needs and calling for change as we make disciples for Christ?” To ensure this, the women must take a look at the work, policies and politics of United Methodist Women under the leadership of the Women’s Division. Having attended the 2002 UMW Assembly and the last three board meetings of the Women’s Division—I must seriously question whether the purpose for United Methodist Women is truly being served for the cause of Christ—or whether a highly political interpretation of social justice has replaced the true purpose. That is not to question the sincere and Christ-centered work of many if not the majority of United Methodist women in the UMW groups around this country. But it is to question the purpose as defined by the Women’s Division under its present leadership. It is clear there is a strong political bias in the Women’s Division. The report that follows will give ample evidence of that fact. What should be of concern to United Methodist women is the fact that the Division’s solutions to legitimate social and missional concerns are, almost without exception, based upon highly partisan, ultra-liberal policy. There is never a conservative, evangelical or orthodox voice that is heard in the discussions, presentations or programs of the Women’s Division. For all the talk of “dialog,” “diversity” and “inclusiveness,” certain voices are not welcome. See the report on the “Just War” panel. While token mention was given to the Just War Theory, not one speaker argued for the justness of the War in Iraq or Afghanistan. There are many Christian experts who could have brought this perspective. Civil Rights is an area where an extreme radical position is taken. Even with the fact of 9/11 and continued terrorist activity around the world, the Women’s Division still decries security measures that protect us in this time of war. This position is the basis for the Division’s opposition to the provisions of the Patriot Act which have been successful thus far in preventing further attacks on the United States. Although characterized by the Women’s Division as unprecedented assault on freedom, the fact is this technology has been used for years in the War on Drugs (see page 9). A radical view of civil rights is seen in the opposition to anti-loitering laws. The Division champions the rights of ethnic young people, but fails to see how certain laws protect these minorities as well as all citizens in the deterrence of crime. These positions of the Women’s Division are disturbing. Last spring at the Women’s Division board meeting in Birmingham, Alabama, the women remembered past discrimination of African Americans and celebrated the advances for all ethnic minorities. United Methodist Women have a history of standing up for the civil rights of all citizens. The Women’s Division violated this standard at the fall board meeting. The report on the nomination of Janice Rodgers Brown, a black conservative, to the DC Court of Appeals is most telling. The Women’s Division position aligns itself with liberal voices determined that conservative men and women will be blocked from appointments, especially to the courts. The all too qualified Janice Rodgers Brown was being “watched” by the Women’s Division, because the Women’s Division finds her unwillingness to legislate from the bench an “extraordinarily—extraordinarily different perspective than ours.” Susie Johnson, Executive Secretary for Public Policy, went on to say that if Judge Brown gets on the DC court, she could end up as the next Bush nominee to the Supreme Court, in which case Judge Brown would be Justice Clarence Thomas’ twin. This should alert all United Methodist women to the Women’s Division’s qualified support for the advancement of ethnic minority women. Their support is granted only so long as the individual espouses the liberal social and political views of the Women’s Division. Judge Brown, a daughter of a sharecropper, knows from personal experience the effects of segregation. Judge Brown won 76% of the vote in her last election and wrote the majority opinion for the California Supreme Court more often than any other judge in the 2001-02 term. But this is eclipsed by the fact that she is a conservative who understands the role of judge is to interpret the law and not legislate it from the bench. This does not fit in with the agenda of Senate Democrats who earlier blocked Miguel Estrada. The Women’s Division has joined their voice with Liberal Democrats who blocked what would have been the first Hispanic and now the first black woman appointee to the second highest court in the land. This bias illustrates that the Women’s Division has a specific agenda—one that stands for the civil rights of those who line up with their political views and stands against minorities who dare to depart from their political perspective. The comment that Judge Brown could be the twin of Clarence Thomas should cause all women to realize that this is not about civil or equal rights for all. Presenter Mark Silk of Trinity University in Hartford, Connecticut went so far as to reference the Republican Party as the party that is “sometimes known as the party of God.” This slur should offend women of faith. This is partisan politics at its worst and the women of the church should demand better of the Women’s Division. Perhaps the most disturbing attitude is one of extreme anti-Americanism. The United States, and its policies under the present Bush administration, is blamed for oppression around the world—along with capitalism and the free market system. This is clearly seen in the presentations of Dr. Nisreen El-Hashemite and Mel Lehman both of whom lay all of Iraq’s woes at the door of the United States. Dr. El-Hashimite’s outrageous claims that the US is responsible for the emergence of new cancer and disease in Iraq as well as devastation comparable to Nagasaki and Hiroshima is ludicrous. Also illustrative is the presentation last fall by Dr. Hsu and the Center for Constitutional Rights, an ultra leftist group who has fought relentlessly for the release of all Guantanamo detainees without regard for national security. Never does the Women’s Division invite or partner with moderate or conservative groups. Never! This should alarm the women of the church. Furthermore, it should be a concern that the Women’s Division’s view of oppression is selective. The oppression of Saddam Hussein, while acknowledged, is not denounced. Where in the past have we seen a call for the International Community to address, much less put a stop to, the atrocities of Saddam that now are not just reports, but can be seen on the nightly news? Why do the Palestinian suicide bombers who target innocent civilians get excused just because they are “occupied” and not in power. Could this say something about the partisan political commitment of the Women’s Division? What about Korea? The Women’s Division is calling for reunification of the North and South. But there is no outrage for the human rights violations going on under the regime of Kim Jong II. Instead we are told that he would not have to starve his people if only the US did not present such a threat to North Korea. Theologically, the women of the church have much to be concerned about. Inclusive language and the definition of marriage will be hotly contested in the coming years. At the root of all these issues is how the Gospel is to be defined. The Women’s Division continues to define and reduce the Gospel of Christ to a gospel of peace and elimination of oppression and injustice. This comes about through political policy, with God’s blessing, of course. Certainly the message of Christ has major implications for world peace, injustice and oppression. But, human deliverance comes from a personal relationship with God. Progress to resolve the real human dilemma, personal and societal, is made as we make disciples of Christ and work to develop Christlikeness in ourselves and others. Programs to develop Christlikeness have been replaced over the years with politicized programs that are described in the following pages. Perhaps the commitment to inclusiveness excludes the very gospel message. The human effort, no matter how noble, is always by itself inadequate. This is why the Women’s Division will never bring about the ends it strives so hard to accomplish. The gospel reduced to a message of social justice simply does not work. The failures of the 20th century offer ample evidence. What is more, this politically co-opted gospel becomes a tool to further failed ideologies and political goals which in their very essence are often anti-Christian. All this is done from a position of moral self-righteousness and moral assuredness. The women of the Church must decide if they will continue to allow the program and purpose of UMW to be defined by what is a leftist political lobby—a lobby with political goals that differ from many United Methodist women. It is time to reevaluate our giving which allows one-sided political lobbying to occur. It is time to reject hysterical claims that conservative women are trying to “shut down” the ministry of United Methodist Women. It is time to support legislation at General Conference that will bring accountability and real diversity of opinion to the Women’s Division. We have our work cut out for us. Joyce Sohl’s Report Joyce Sohl’s report is about the future: the future of individuals, the Women’s Division, the United Methodist Women’s organization, the church, the society and the world. She asks these questions: “What will the world be like in 15 years? What about the church? What will be the place and role of women? What concerns will women have about themselves and their communities? Where will I be professionally and individually in the next 10-15 years? What impact does or should my faith have on these questions?” She then calls for “thinking outside the box.” She tells us to envision the future instead of modifying the past. We should be thinking “in light of possible futures” within the church, the society and the world. Borrowing from Leonard Sweet in his book, Soul Tsunami, she encourages us to be spiritual interventionist, willing to help design this new world, for, “the future is a function of our choices and creations.” Ms. Sohl agrees with Sweet who tells us the future is not a discovery nor a destiny but a decision. And if we do nothing to make decisions or intervene, then we will be driven by technology, and by “other people’s need, greed and creed.” Into this future, which is just waiting for us to create for ourselves, Ms. Sohl calls us to take into account God’s promise to make all things new—of transforming lives, the world and the church. She quotes from John 3, the familiar story of Jesus’ conversation with Nicodemus where he tells Nicodemus that he must “be born again” or in some translations “born from above.” Ms. Sohl teaches that the Greek word here is anothen which means both “from above” and “again” or “anew.” She goes on to teach that the transformation God promises in this passage which speaks of new birth is for individuals, institutions and organizations—for the church and the world. The cross and the resurrection are for all of life. Most Christians will not have a problem with applying the concept of new birth to all of life. But, Ms. Sohl weds these promises of God to her concept of the future—one that is envisioned and designed by us where we intervene to create a new world. Ms. Sohl alludes to “birthing” a new church—one with newly defined guiding principles. This is a future “as a field of action” in the words of Eugene Peterson. A future, Ms. Sohl tells us, that has “promised newness” which the women must articulate and make known. Ms. Sohl asks if the church, society and the world are to be reborn “in the light of possible futures,” what could this “promised newness” look like? Let’s consider how the principles Ms. Sohl is defining would affect our personal lives. If we buy into the concepts of family espoused by the culture and accepted by the Women’s Division, and all the consequences this holds for women and children, does this mean even more children will be deprived of either fatherhood or motherhood? What will the effect be if the church blesses what many are envisioning now—a new concept of marriage? Will the “complimentarity” of the genders be traded for new science? Will the covenant relationship that God gave to men and women on the first pages of Genesis be done away with altogether? For centuries the Word of God has been the authority for theology and Christian mission. What will it mean to the integrity of the Gospel message if we look within ourselves to make decisions for “newness” and create this new world? In the 2004 United Methodist Women’s Program Book, prepared by the Women’s Division, one of the programs deals with the cross and suggests that it is time to find another less violent symbol for our faith. Indeed what would the church look like 15 years from now without the symbol of the cross? And without the symbol of the cross, how long would it take for us to do without the message of the cross? And, what about God? Will He be merely called upon to bless what we ourselves “envision” and subsequently “intervene” and finally “create” to fit our ideas of how the world should be? Will our women create or perhaps insist on new language for God? Will the future call God, “goddess” or “mother.” Can Ms. Sohl offer United Methodist women nothing better than this misguided vision of the future?
Indeed, the future of the church, society and of us all is being
“envisioned” at a speed far greater than many of us would have believed
possible just a few years ago. Who would have thought even five years ago
that the very institution of marriage would need a Constitutional
Amendment to preserve it? Ms. Sohl is correct when she says the future is
a decision. United Methodist women must decide if the future as
envisioned by the Women’s Division is the future they want for the next
135 years. What is the decision before us? Perhaps it all boils down
to; will we remain true to the faith “once delivered to the saints?” (The following presenters addressed the Section on Christian Social Responsibility.) Princess Dr. Nisreen El-Hashemite Dr. El-Hashemite is from Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School, where she conducts cancer research. She is also affiliated with the LAM Foundation which funds research to find a cure for a rare lung condition that affects only women. Dr. El-Hashemite is Executive Director of the “Royal Academy of Science International Trust” (RASIT) which promotes Islamic women in the field of medicine. Dr. El-Hashemite reported that she was the granddaughter of the late King Fiasal of Iraq and a direct descendant of “the prophet of Islam.” She exhorted the women to be “Peace Makers” and announced she is motivated by this message and is working for the Nobel Peace Prize. She believes that Iraq’s history of 1917-1921, when British troops occupied Iraq after WWI, is repeating itself in 2003. The only difference she stated was the universal call for peace. She went on to say that whatever we can achieve in the power of the mind, we can achieve. Dr. El-Hashemite dismissed all reasons for the US intervention as morally wrong. The sanctions put on Iraq to bring down the brutal dictator were viewed by Dr. El-Hashemite as a source of Iraqi suffering. She attributed the suffering of her people to the sanctions and to the US wars against Iraq. Dr. El-Hashemite dismissed the brutal regime of Saddam Hussein from culpability when she stated, “Iraq is not Saddam Hussein just like the United States is not President Bush.” Dr. El-Hashemite went so far as to claim that the United States was responsible for the emergence of new cancer and disease in Iraq due, not to anything Saddam did, but solely on sanctions the US imposed on the Iraqi people, and of course the war itself. She claimed that the situation in Iraq was much worse than being reported and she believed it to be comparable to the situation in Japan after the WWII bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima. Dr. El-Hashemite went on to say that she had been so depressed by the invasion of her country and the suffering of her people at the hands of the American military that she had not wanted to live. She did not mention the suffering and mass killing of her people at the hands of Saddam Hussein as being a problem for her. She told the women that Muslims believe and have faith in the same things. She stated that we share the message of Jesus, “Peace on Earth” and the “Call of Peace” of Islam. She claimed to believe everything Christians and Jews believe, because “in all due respect, Islam is the end of all religions.” Dr. El-Hashemite calls for peace in a broad sense. Her rhetoric is extremely anti-American and she appears to see all social ills as America’s fault. In her work on LAMs, she has been known to blame LAMs on environmental misuse by the United States. The documented environmental misuse of other countries, especially third world countries like Iraq, represents a far greater environmental problem for the world. But of course, this never enters her characterization of the problem. Her claim that the US is responsible for the emergence of new cancer and disease in Iraq is based on her radical political position and not on scientific objectivity, which, in turn, is intellectually dishonest and not worthy of a scientist of her distinction. But, using science to push one’s political agenda is nothing new. Her claim that Iraq and the suffering from this year’s war can be compared to Japan after the bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima is simply absurd. The precise technology used to target military objectives in the War on Iraq enabled it to be deemed the most compassionate war ever waged in history. Dr. El-Hashemite consistently takes an anti-Bush position, being a frequent critic of the President. Mel Lehman Mel Lehman accompanied Dr. El- Hashemite. He is formerly with Church World Service and currently heads a Non-Governmental Organization (NGO), Children of Iraq. He encouraged those present to find more Muslim women, presumably like Dr. El- Hashemite, and listen to them. More military spending is not the answer according to Lehman. He stated that we are deluding ourselves if we don’t know we live in very dangerous times, dangerous because of the American military presence. Lehman told the women to follow the message of Jesus and be peacemakers. In 1996, Lehman was reading an article based on a UNICEF report in the New York Times that claimed children were dying in Iraq because of US sanctions. Later he traveled with Church World Service to assess the problem, observing children in hospitals that had no medicines. It was at this time that the Clinton administration bombed Baghdad in response to Saddam not allowing weapons inspectors access to weapon sites. Lehman found himself in a hotel in Baghdad during the bombing and left Iraq a few weeks later. Lehman documented the health and social conditions he found in Iraq. It is his conclusion that must be looked at carefully. He concluded from this experience that most Iraqis are not hostile and aggressive as they are portrayed. “The United States attacks Saddam, demonizing him, demonizing the country, but there are 22 million other individuals in Iraq, and I met some very good people.” (GBGM Staff Briefing Summary, May 18, 1999; http://gbgmm-umc.org/mission/news/br990518) Lehman, like Dr. El-Hashemite, sees the United States as the villain and he has held this opinion for years prior to the present conflict. His assigning the US blame for every social ill is typical of the special presenters at Women’s Division sponsored events. Lehman does not acknowledge Saddam as responsible for any of the Iraqi’s suffering. Of course, it is a widely known fact that Saddam starved, gassed and withheld United Nations and other aid from his own people. These facts and their consequences never make it into a discussion of Iraq’s social and political dilemma. Legislative Items – Susie Johnson, Executive Secretary for Public Policy (The following legislative items were presented in the Section on Christian Social Responsibility, and later reported to plenary session.) Susie Johnson gave a report on current and pending legislation that affects the goals and work of the Women’s Division. She announced that the Action Alerts, generated by her work in Washington, will now reach 8,000 United Methodist Women, an increase from 1,500. These Action Alerts are used to inform women where and how they can lobby for and against legislative measures that affect the work for peace and justice as defined by the Women’s Division. These Action Alerts are posted on the Web and can be obtained by visiting www.gbgm-umc/umw and clicking on Action Alerts. The following was characterized by Ms. Johnson as “a scary Halloween report.” HR3146 Welfare Reform TANF Reauthorization TANF Reauthorization is a very important issue to the Women’s Division for they believe it has not served women and children well. They are concerned about what they reported to be $100 million that is allocated to the Bush Healthy Marriage Program and $50 million to an Abstinence Only Program. When I questioned the Women’s Division position on these two programs, Ms. Johnson would only comment that she reported the facts. I can only say that this is the second board meeting where she has expressed concern about marriage and family issues from a liberal perspective. There was certainly no action taken to promote an existing program that has been shown to bring down the divorce rate and provide other benefits in the states of Oklahoma and Arkansas. Ms. Johnson also reported that white welfare participation was down from 33% to 23%; Hispanic participation was up from 23% to 29 %; and the number of black participants had stayed the same. This causes the Women’s Division to see welfare reform as a race issue. She went on to state that in the last year, one million more persons have been classified as poor. She claimed that 14% of those who left welfare in 2002 had no job. My observation is, Welfare Reform under the Clinton administration, and the subsequent TANF Reauthorization, has been a concern for the Women’s Division. I have observed that the Division does not welcome any marriage program that promotes traditional marriage only. This conclusion is further substantiated by reading material available for purchase at the meeting. For example, The Loyal Opposition edited by Tex Sample and Amy E. Delong is a compilation of essays that attempt to give a scriptural and theological basis for the practice of homosexuality. This is problematic of course. When dealing with clear scriptural prohibitions, they see the prohibitions as mere concerns for “ritual purity” or the goodness of God’s created order as not excluding “goodness in another orderings.” These considerations are a stretch at best and ignore centuries of sound teaching and biblical exegesis on this subject. Other essays promote the acceptance of homosexuality as normative and promote homosexual unions. Testimonies of gay and lesbian clergy are also included. For women who would like to read a thorough response to Tex Sample’s position and the claims made in The Loyal Opposition, see Robert Gagnon’s The Bible and Homosexual Practice or visit www.robgannon.net and click on the article Four Myths of Pro-Homosex Propaganda: A Response to Tex Sample.
Women, who see the need to
address the crisis in marriage with programs that prepare young people for
the commitment of marriage, as well as provide assistance to those in
failing marriages, will not find the Women’s Division actively working in
these endeavors. In fact, working for such is seen as threatening or at
least insensitive to those who do not live in traditional marriage. The
research clearly shows that this is indeed a social justice issue. The
benefits of traditional marriage to both women and children are well
documented. Divorce is a major if not the number one cause for poverty
among women. Likewise, children in single parent homes are more likely to
suffer low economic conditions than children who reside with both
parents. These statistical facts alone should be reason enough to work
for and not against programs that encourage “healthy marriages.” Ms. Johnson reported that Marriage Protection Week had just been observed. She also reported that Alabama, Nebraska, Nevada, and Hawaii had constitutional amendments that defined marriage between one man and one woman. She also went on to say that we may begin to see “marriage protection pledges” signed by candidates. While unstated, Ms. Johnson conveyed rejection of actions endorsing marriage between one man and one woman. It is important to clarify that The Family Research Council is sponsoring "Marriage Protection Pledges." These were part of their effort during Marriage Protection Week. Their effort has nothing to do with official United States’ policy or Congressional activities. It is a grassroots effort sponsored solely by FRC and, of course, they will look for candidates who are willing to back marriage protection, but there is NOTHING sinister about that effort at all, and certainly nothing "official" in what they are doing in regard to the US government or the Bush Administration.
|
|
|