Leading up to the last General Conference, much of the “official” publicity conveyed the tone how wonderfully the denomination would be moving forward together in unified mission, with differences of opinion treated with the utmost respect through the spirit and practices of “holy conferencing.”
Sadly, the reality of what I actually observed at General Conference was quite different.
One of the more striking and sad aspects about General Conference is the way false statements are made with little to no opportunity for correction, and at times play a significant role in determining official denominational policies and statements. To be sure, not all inaccurate statements are made through intentional deception. But when delegates and others arise to make confident pronouncements about matters that they really do not understand, it has the same effect of basing important decisions for our denomination on ignorance and falsehood. While intent is important, people still bear responsibility for making false statements whenever they go out of their way to make them.
One of the more glaring examples of this occurred with a resolution decrying the National Council of Chuches role as a “collaborating nonprofit organization” for a 2007 gay pride celebration, which boasted of “[p]erformances by sexy and steamy NY go-go dancers.” The resolution was defeated, largely because an NCC representative assured committee delegates these claims were simply a “fabrication.” But in fact, an IRD staffer was in attendance when the NCC General Secretary Bob Edgar spoke at the event’s “interfaith service.” Documentation for this resolution remains readily available online.
I repeatedly witnessed more such falsehood-based decision-making in monitoring the “sanctity of life issues” subcommittee of the Church and Society—2 committee. Successfully arguing against a petition to broadly oppose abortions performed on viable fetuses, one liberal delegate claimed that “partial-birth abortions” (already opposed by the United Methodist Social Principles) are the same thing as “late-term abortions.” In fact, partial-birth abortion is just one of several different methods of late-term abortions.
The Rev. J. J. Whitney of Arkansas argued against a petition supporting the use of anesthesia to ease the pain of unborn children during late-term abortions, citing an estimate that capability for feeling pain does not begin until 28 weeks, and claiming that abortion simply does not occur that late. However, many experts put the estimate for the beginning of fetal pain capabilities much earlier. And while they are a small fraction of all abortions, many healthy unborn children are aborted at 28 weeks and later, as they are allowed no legal protection as human beings under Roe v. Wade.
During consideration of a petition on embryo adoption, the liberal sub-committee chair, Rev. Dwain “Pete” Petersen, used his position to have the head of the Texas chapter of the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice (RCRC) speak to the committee, despite his having no particular expertise in the issue at hand. Dr. Fred Campbell told delegates that he understood it was technologically impossible for an “excess” embryo left over from in vitro fertilization treatments to be implanted into a genetically unrelated woman’s womb. Fortunately, this was a rare instance in which the record was set straight, with delegates being subsequently told by others that in fact such “snowflake adoptions” have been successfully taking place for over a decade.
As sub-committee chair, it was Petersen’s responsibility in the full committee to simply report the sub-committee’s vote and recommendation. But this is not a duty he fulfilled well. In reporting on a pro-life resolution that expressed concern for the dehumanizing threats to various segments of humanity (the poor, the young, the old, the terminally ill, the disabled, women, the unborn, and victims of racial or ethnic intolerance), Petersen gave the impression that he was speaking for the sub-committee when he urged its rejection in his report, inaccurately claiming that “it’s covered elsewhere.” In fact the sub-committee had actually approved this resolution by a vote of 13-2. It was defeated in the full committee by just two votes. Given the tendency of full committees to endorse sub-committee recommendations, and the full plenary generally endorsing the committee recommendations, this resolution probably would have been adopted if not for Petersen’s misrepresentation. Peterson also effectively ensured the defeat of a lengthy resolution critiquing RCRC by incorrectly claiming that the sub-committee had voted it down 14-1. In fact, the sub-committee never got around to considering the resolution at all and so had planned to submit it for discussion sans recommendation to the full committee.
Supporters of the denomination’s continued affiliation with RCRC were prolific in their misinformation. Bishop Beverly Shamana of San Francisco took the very unusual step of testifying before the relevant committee in defense of the group, claiming that, among other things, “RCRC does not support late-term abortion.” As President of United Methodism’s Washington lobby office, the General Board of Church and Society (GBCS), it is hard to believe that she would not be aware of RCRC’s consisent efforts to defeat any significant attempts to limit partial term abortions. A talking-points flyer distributed to delegates by RCRC misleadingly claimed that they had never “supported the use of partial-birth abortion.”
In defending RCRC before the General Conference plenary session, Church and Society—2 committee chair Fred Brewington of New York falsely identified “the Lutheran Church, the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ), the Church of the Brethren, and the American Baptist Church” as RCRC member denominations. In fact, the American Baptist denomination withdrew from RCRC in 1988, the 1995 Churchwide Assembly of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) rejected linking with RCRC by a vote of 778-101, and the Church of the Brethren and Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) have never been members of RCRC—with the latter’s Homeland Ministries division making a clear decision to avoid formal affiliation with RCRC in 1994. As a GBCS board member, Brewington has little excuse for not knowing better. In his closing remarks, Brewington characterized “our relationship with RCRC” as one “that gives us resources.” But withdrawing the denomination’s formal endorsement of RCRC would not end United Methodists’ access to RCRC produced resources, as RCRC already works with like-minded congregations in denominations that lack a formal affiliation with it.
As reported before the Conference, delegates were mailed inaccuracy-laden film denouncing IRD, which was heavily promoted by liberal church officials. The all-too-common angry, over-the-top rudeness toward renewal-minded United Methodists by their opponents was also as present as ever at General Conference. In a striking display of intolerance, a liberal caucus group distributed a series of cartoons demonizing their fellow United Methodists at IRD, portraying IRD as a snarling, big-moustached villain trying to murder a screaming John Wesley!
The lack of Christian civility at times extended to duly elected General Conference delegates. During a sub-committee meeting, a pro-life delegate expressed his desire to represent the people from his annual conference, only to be mocked by GBCS staffer Linda Bales, who scoffingly and unquietly whispered “who ‘sent’ him?”
The most prominent inversion of “holy conferencing” was probably the decision by the Council of Bishops to authorize a 15-minute demonstration on the General Conference floor by angry pro-homosexuality activists. Delegates were not given an opportunity to vote on allowing this valuable time to be taken away from General Conference business. Even bishops not known as liberals went along with this, hoping to prevent a more forced intrusion of the General Conference as happened at the 2000 General Conference.
In polite circles, such use of pressure to achieve acquiescence to one’s unreasonable demands is typically known as bullying or extortion. No similar invitation for such a so-called “witness” to the General Conference was extended to any group that actually supports United Methodism’s historic and democratically confirmed teaching on sexual morality, or that feels similar pain and exclusion from liberal aspects of the denomination’s position on abortion.
But while the General Conference’s ultimate decisions are indeed important, they must be understood within the context of how they are practically applied. According to the Episcopal Greetings to the 2004 edition of the United Methodist Book of Discipline, this quadrennially updated volume is “the most current statement of how United Methodists agree to live their lives together.” Yet the sad fact of the matter is that many church leaders charged with upholding the Discipline have chosen to brazenly violate the letter—or at least the spirit—of the connectional covenant when certain provisions conflict with their liberal beliefs. As the dust settles from this General Conference, there is no reason to expect such covenant-breaking to not continue.
There are several important lessons from all of these observations about General Conference.
First, it is very important that in the future, conservative and moderate delegates be alert and prepared to challenge factual misstatements from their more liberal counterparts.
Secondly, the actions described here clearly demonstrate that there are indeed very distinct and opposing “camps” in United Methodism, however much some of our leaders may try to ignore this increasingly obvious fact. While some groups are focused primarily on single-issues, and while many individuals take a maverick approach in the combination of the various positions they take, this polarization inevitably unites distinct causes driven by similar worldviews. RCRC advertised that during the General Conference it would base its operations at the headquarters of the Common Witness coalition (which included the Reconcilling Ministries Network, the Methodist Federation for Social Action, Affirmation, and Soulforce). In three separate statements over the month of February, RMN also described the GBCS as part of “our coalition” for the General Conference. To mingle with like-minded delegates, RCRC’s PR director, Marjorie Signer, made a point of going to the same-sex union service organized by RMN as “a final act of protest” outside the convention center. As in other similarly troubled denominations, the United Methodist bishops and officials most outspoken in repudiating traditional Christian teaching on the authority of Scripture and/or the eternal divinity and atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ are the most reliable allies for the pro-homosexuality cause.
Finally, all of the above rather prominently raises the question: If the divisions in United Methodism are just mere differences of opinion between well-meaning brothers and sisters in Christ, of negligible importance relative to the things that unite “evangelicals” and “progressives” in the church, then why must there be such a lack of truthfulness, civility, and integrity?
No comments yet
