United Methodist Women Respond to IRD Petition on Immigration March

Earlier this year, the Institute on Religion and Democracy (IRD) sent a petition to our constituents in anticipation of the March 19-21 Ecumenical Advocacy Days (EAD). The theme of this year’s EAD was “A Place to Call Home: Immigrants, Refugees, and Displaced Peoples” and involved advocacy and lobbying for Comprehensive Immigration Reform similar to legislation from New York Democratic Senator Charles Shumer. It also included a large march on the U.S. Capitol for liberalized immigration laws.

Of particular interest to the IRD was the involvement of mainline church organizations. The conference was co-sponsored by, among others, the Washington-based United Methodist Global Board of Church and Society (GBCS) and the New York-based United Methodist Women’s Division. Further, the Methodist Building, located on Capitol Hill across from the Capitol Building, was to be used as a staging ground for the conference’s political lobbying. In light of all this, the IRD sent a petition entitled “Please Represent the Whole Church!” that read as follows:

The United Methodist General Board of Church and Society and the United Methodist Women’s Division do not speak for me when they march in the March 21 rally in Washington, D.C. for liberalized immigration policies. And the United Methodist Council of Bishops does not speak for me when they endorse eventual amnesty and virtual open borders. I implore our church’s agencies and bishops to strive to serve the whole United Methodist Church and not just the divisive political causes of some.

The petition notified signers that, upon receiving the signed petition, the IRD would forward them to the GBCS. After a number of signed petitions were returned, we did just that.

Over the past several weeks, we have heard from several constituents who have received a response from the United Methodist Women’s Division, apparently forwarded by GBCS. In the letter, Deputy General Secretary Harriet Jane Olson explained the United Methodist Women Division’s relationship to the United Methodist Church, saying: “We do not speak for the church – in fact sometimes we speak to the church, as we did over many years calling for lay women’s eligibility to serve as members of the church’s governing bodies and for full clergy rights for women.”

Addressing involvement of the IRD, Olson wrote, “As IRD is active in the Annual Conference election of General Conference and in lobbying the delegates to the General Conference, they know all of this very well.” She further surmised: “The form that they [the IRD] invited you to sign is a misdirection, at best, away from the position that the United Methodist Church has actually taken on this matter and toward two organizations with whom IRD is not in harmony,” referring of course to GBCS and the Women’s Division. Defending the actions of her organization as well as other UMC agencies, she assured the petition signers: “Your general agencies are not undisciplined or out of control – they are attempting to press forward with positions our church has taken as we seek to live out the gospel together.”

It is somewhat unusual for the United Methodist Women’s Division to take the time to respond to its critics. Of course, we disagree with the characterization of our petition as “at best” a “misdirection.” All United Methodists have the right to share their concerns with United Methodist agencies even if, like the Women’s Division, it is not funded directly by local church apportionments. (The Women’s Division is funded by United Methodist Women’s groups.) Despite their protestations to the contrary, agencies like GBCS and the Women’s Division give the impression of widespread United Methodist support for their liberal political lobbying. The continuing decline of the once formidable United Methodist Women’s organization, whose membership has fallen from over 1 million to just over 600,000, further illustrates how the Women’s Division is failing in its leadership.