Observations and Commentary on 2015 GBCS Social Principles Consultation

Cindy Evans is a longtime United Methodist, an active member of her United Methodist congregation in Missouri, and the Administrator and Publicity and Outreach Coordinator for Lifewatch, the pro-life caucus within the United Methodist Church.  Here, she recounts her experience as a selected participant in the seventh and final global consultation on the UMC Social Principles hosted by our denomination’s D.C. political lobby office, the General Board of Church and Society (GBCS).

The 2012 General Conference considered legislation to carry out consultations to update the Social Principles “with the goal of making them more succinct, theologically founded and globally relevant” The final General Conference action on this petition was a vote to refer it to the General Council for Strategy and Oversight, which was to have been created by the “Plan UMC” restructuring legislation overwhelmingly approved by delegates. However, this new leadership body was never created, due to Plan UMC being invalidated by our denomination’s Judicial Council. After consultation with the Secretary of the General Conference, the General Board of Church and Society (GBCS) Board of Directors approved a recommendation from its Executive Committee to initiate such a process for making the Social Principles more succinct and relevant to the global nature of our denomination.

As part of my work as Administrator for Lifewatch, I check the GBCS’s website periodically. When I read their invitation for people to apply to participate in one of two “Social Principles Consultations” to be held in Washington, DC, I decided to apply, knowing that if selected, my opinions would probably be in the minority. To my surprise and excitement, my application was accepted and I was invited to participate in the final of these meetings held around the world.

Thirty people came together in Washington, DC on January 23-24, 2015 to discuss the Social Principles and consider ways to make them more globally relevant. Aside from a few Central Conference participants, members came from as far away as Alaska, North Dakota, Texas, Maine and Florida. In short, all geographical areas and US jurisdictions were represented. However, while there were a range of perspectives represented, it seemed to me that those of us who expressed more “conservative” or traditional views were in the minority.  [Editor’s Note: IRD / UM Action is aware of other United Methodists well known to have more orthodox views than the GBCS party line who applied to participate in this consultation but were not accepted by the GBCS.]

Following introductions and an opening prayer, the work began. Each of the six areas of the Social Principles was introduced by a presentation from one of the participants, followed by small group discussions of a designated portion of that section and a general discussion of the small groups’ findings.

Several times during the course of the two days references were made to the “US-centric” nature of the Social Principles and the need to make them more globally-relevant. At the same time we were challenged by a few sections we considered US-centric but may not be. For example, internet and cell phones are critical forms of communication for people and churches in some areas of the world. Eliminating ¶162.T of the Social Principles (“Information Communication Technology”), based on the perception that “the goal of universal access to telephone and internet services” is too US-centric might actually amount to not supporting United Methodists in many other parts of the globe who need such services for access to the denomination and outside world as a whole.

At one point during the two-day meeting, General Conference Secretary Fitzgerald “Gere” Reist explained the process of submitting petitions to General Conference. Requesting clarification, I inquired whether individuals are still permitted to submit petitions, or whether – as many had believed – individual petitions must now first go through local church councils or Annual Conferences. Gere replied, “Yes, individuals CAN submit petitions.” This is good news. (Petitions will be accepted beginning April 1, 2015.)

The only truly contentious areas of discussion were in “The Nurturing Community” section of the Social Principles: “The Family,” “Marriage,” “Women and Men,” “Human Sexuality,” “Abortion,” and “Ministry to Those Who Have Experienced an Abortion.” One participant noted that the section on marriage is “not globally relevant because it’s a very culturally and regionally specific, or sensitive, issue”; another claimed that “marriage and the roles of men and women and human sexuality … are culturally-specific. And we have to give honor to that – especially if we want Methodism to flourish in many different cultural contexts.” However, the only times specific Scripture was mentioned in reference to marriage (Gen. 1:27 and Gen. 2:24), the attitude was somewhat cavalier – as if these were verses to be “worked around.”

The small group reporter for ¶161.F – “Human Sexuality” – noted that the paragraph does not recognize gay marriage and then twice referred to “persons” as being “incompatible with Christian teaching.” I felt compelled to correct the obvious attempt to redefine that Social Principles’ statement.  I read the sentence from the Social Principles [“The United Methodist Church does not condone the practice of homosexuality and considers this practice incompatible with Christian teaching”] into the record and stated, “There’s nothing in there that says the PERSON is incompatible with Christian teaching, it’s the behavior that is discouraged.”

Included in the introductory presentation to this section, the presenter for “The Nurturing Community” said “Certainly there’s a large debate that needs to go on about life and death, and it’s a frightening one to have. It’s one that … I try and shy away from often in my local church. I’ll talk about a lot of things, but I don’t often talk about abortion. And there’s a lot of pain there for a lot of people.”

And indeed there is! In what may be a first within the United Methodist Building, outside of the annual Lifewatch service, the “pro-life” position was presented when I shared my abortion experience and the need for the Church to offer ministry to women in similar circumstances, both before and after the abortions (¶161.J and K).

Key messages I heard at this event was that some portions of the Social Principles are US-centric and need changing to become globally-relevant, and also that Social Principles teaching on human sexuality as well as other provisions of the Book of Discipline related to gay marriage and ordination standards are somehow fundamentally problematic to non-US (and some US) United Methodist members and “perhaps can never be globally accepted or relevant.” I came away from the two-day meeting appreciating the need to improve the sections which can be made more globally-relevant. But I also came away believing more strongly that an eventual hope or goal of this process (in the opinion of GBCS and other liberal American United Methodists) is for a new US-only central conference that would allow American United Methodism to set its own course (without international input) on issues like sexuality or abortion, in a direction opposed by orthodox Christians in the USA and overseas.

I hope I’m wrong; only time will tell.

[The entire two-day consultation is available online: www.ustream.tv/recorded/57907136  .]