Posted on 07/04/2007 7:06:39 PM PDT by monomaniac
LifeNews.com Note: John Lomperis is a research associate at the Institute on Religion and Democracy in Washington.
At their annual meetings in June, the North Carolina and Mississippi Conferences of the United Methodist Church called on the denomination to limit its support for legal abortion to cases of danger to the mother's physical life. This would align America's second-largest Protestant denomination with the stance of the National Right to Life Committee and other major pro-life groups.
The stated goal of both the North Carolina and the Mississippi resolution is to prevent the church's position from being identified “with the ‘pro-choice’ legal position of Roe v. Wade."
In 1972, leaders of the United Methodist Church narrowly voted to adopt a position broadly in favor of legal abortion. But there have been several incremental improvements in the years since then. For instance, in 2000 the denomination adopted a position against most instances of partial-birth abortion.
Last month, the North Carolina and Mississippi Conferences, along with the regional bodies representing United Methodists in eastern Tennessee, South Indiana, and Northwest Texas also passed resolutions calling on the denomination to withdraw its membership in the radically pro-abortion Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice (RCRC).
The latter set of resolutions noted such concerns as RCRC’s unconditional support for all abortions, the fact that RCRC does not represent the views of grassroots United Methodists, and RCRC’s opposition to the United Methodist Church's more conservative positions on partial-birth abortion and homosexual practice.
RCRC was established in 1973 with support from the nonprofit foundation of the pornographic magazine, Playboy, among others in 1973 to counter the nascent movement to overturn Roe v. Wade.
Then, as now, RCRC (then called the Religious Coalition for Abortion Rights) aimed to undermine the largely religiously motivated pro-life movement by propping up radical, pro-abortion Jewish, mainline Protestant, and Unitarian clergy.
The 2003 expose', Holy Abortion? A Theological Critique of the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice, revealed that the coalition recently received three-fourths of its income from liberal foundations and less than one percent from its member denominations and other religious bodies. The United Methodist Church, which provides no direct financial support, accounts for 8 million of the 20 million Americans who RCRC claims to represent.
These resolutions will make abortion a major issue addressed at the 2008 United Methodist General Conference. General Conferences meet every four years and are the denomination's top authority for determining the church's theological, moral, and structural positions.
It is not unprecedented for a denomination to reverse past support for abortion.
America's largest Protestant denomination, the Southern Baptist Convention, adopted resolutions in 1971 and 1974 denouncing seeing “all abortion as murder” as an “extreme” position and supporting abortion in circumstances ranging from rape to risks for the mother's “emotional health.”
In the 1970s and 1980s, Southern Baptist denominational officials worked closely with groups like RCRC and People for the American Way to oppose abortion restrictions. Since then, however, the Southern Baptist Convention has adopted a solidly pro-life position and become a key bulwark of the pro-life movement.
A similar shift may be under way in the United Methodist Church's response to abortion.
Doesn’t the United Methodist Church belong to the National Council of Churches, created as a Soviet front organization?
Does the term "when Hell freezes over" come to mind.
Mainline Protestant churches are tied to abortion factions as they are to the homosexual agenda.
That's why they are becoming a dying breed right before our eyes.
Most are led by those who studied with non-believers who do not accept the inerrancy of the Bible, the Incarnate Christ nor the Resurrection.
Why would they have a problem with all forms of immorality (Bible refers t that as SIN) another antiquated term in which they do not accept and very few accept a literal Hell.
I am ashamed as a United Methodist to learn of this.
And then they wonder why they’re losing members.
Fellow United Methodist here.
I’m also deeply ashamed and troubled by this. The reality is that the majority of Methodists I know have no idea what is contained in the denominations Social Principles.
What I do know is that my local congregation runs directly counter to many of those stated positions, and that is why I’m still a member.
The UMC position is pro-life
Well, that’s not what the official position, as stated in the Social Principles in the Book of Discipline says.
“Our belief in the sanctity of unborn human life makes us reluctant to approve abortion. But we are equally bound to respect the sacredness of the life and well-being of the mother, for whom devastating damage may result from an unacceptable pregnancy. In continuity with past Christian teaching, we recognize tragic conflicts of life with life that may justify abortion, and in such cases we support the legal option of abortion under proper medical procedures. We cannot affirm abortion as an acceptable means of birth control, and we unconditionally reject it as a means of gender selection.”
http://archives.umc.org/interior.asp?mid=1732
While that is certainly more restrictive than the current status-quo, it is not a rejection of abortion outside of instances where the mother’s life is in jeopardy.
Unconditionally rejected as a means of gender selection, but only not affirmed as a means of birth control? How can that make sense to anyone? It’s not a logically or theologically consistent position.
The UMC position is decidedly not Pro-Life.
The Council of Bishops, the final source of authority in the UMC, has consistently and forcefully supported Roe v Wade.
The leadership of the UMC views itself as distinctly leftist politically. For more than 50 years they have worked assiduously to rid the denomination of conservatism in all its forms, especially charisma, Biblical literalism and Christ only salvation.
UMC members typically do not believe in the official social positions of their church. This is a denomination gone so badly awry that it can no longer be considered Christian.
The UMC owns Duke university, and directly chooses half the board members. Because of their refusal to apologize for the Lacrosse mess, and clean up the staff there, no depth they sink to should surprise anyone. By all indications they rejected the Bible long ago.
Did not know this. UMC actually owns the university?
I agree with your post, and my church is similar to yours regarding adherence to some of the social principles contained in the Discipline. I was a Baptist until I met and married my wife. We attended and were active in the Presbyterian Church (USA) that my wife and in-laws had attended all their lives. We moved to Winston-Salem and joined a Presbyterian church here, but left when a new minister came in and demanded all of the staff’s resignations for him to hold “until needed.” (We are neighbors and good friends with the former choir director/organist.) We joined the Methodist Church in our small town (Lewisville, NC) and have been very happy for the last 14+ years. There are liberals and conservatives in our church, but I don’t know of anyone who espouses everything in the Discipline.
For many, I believe, denominational labels are ignored these days. People have differences in their faiths, even within denominations. We, as many, chose our church because of the people and programs there. “Do justice, love kindness and walk humbly with your God” is the byword for most people. How that humble walk is performed varies among people, but we all believe in the same God.
Good for them. I left the Methodist Church in part because of their stand on abortion.
I am a former employee of United Methodist Childrens Home of Alabama and learned many things that were very contrary to BIBLE teachings.
They are a lost cause.
Thanks for sharing!
I too was Baptist pre-marriage, though not the most regular attender. Wife was Catholic, but did not want to remain so, so we wound up in a Methodist church. As you said, it was the local programs and people that I was in ministry with that convinced me that I had found the place that God wanted me.
I don’t think many in our church are aware of even half of what is contained in the Discipline, especially the Social Principles. We talk about it from time to time in one of my Bible Study groups, but that’s all I hear of it, and I’m usually the one doing the talking!
Many of the church’s activities run directly counter to decisions made by UMC leadership. Like the decision to not support Boy Scouts, my local church has the most active and vibrant Boy Scout troop I’ve ever seen or heard of in Kansas City. I’m amazed at some of the trips and projects they undertake.
“This is a denomination gone so badly awry that it can no longer be considered Christian.”
By this logic John the Baptist wouldn’t have been a Jew.
Think about it. The Church doesn’t belong to the Methodists. That was never the idea.
Your logic escapes me. We are talking about a corporate institution, not the body of Christ. Paul was a Jew but was he a Pharisee or a member of the Sanhedrin as a follower of Christ? Clearly not. Judaism, like Christianity, is a religious movement, not an institution.
Take your question deeper, and you’ll see where I’m coming from.
What “corporate institution” of Judaism was Paul a part of? Christ?
That’s my point.
They were part of local institutions led by elected officials, all very political in nature.
There were at least a dozen branches of Judaism extant in the Middle East in their time. The Pharasees and Sadducees are 2 mentioned in the NT. These were, by any rubric, denominations.
Jesus’ cleansing of the Temple signaled a division within the political structure of the local Jewish community.
The Temple was not, as you seem to suggest, monolithic and solely expressive of the Will of God.
Are you saying that to be a Methodist is to be Christian? On a “deeper” level, does membership in a Christian religious institution make one a follower of Christ or simply an adherent of specific denominational doctrine?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.