Posted on 08/29/2018 8:15:56 AM PDT by Morgana
Due to action of The United Methodist Church’s 2012 General Conference and to negotiation of church leaders, the General Board of Church and Society held listening sessions on the Social Principles throughout the church. From them, Church and Society learned that the Social Principles need to become “more theologically grounded, more globally relevant, and more succinct” (according to a 04/12/18 press release).
Then the 2016 General Conference voted to continue Church and Society’s work in revising the Social Principles. On April 11, 2018, “The United Methodist Social Principles”/“Working Draft 1” was released. Church and Society aims to propose a complete revision of the Social Principles to the 2020 General Conference.
The Social Principle on Abortion: A Brief History
Since the birth of The United Methodist Church in 1968, the Social Principles’ paragraph on abortion has been contested. The 1972 paragraph stated: “We support the removal of abortion from the criminal code, placing it instead under laws relating to other procedures of standard medical practice. A decision concerning abortion should be made only after thorough and thoughtful consideration by the parties involved, with medical and pastoral counsel.”
Following the United States Supreme Court’s 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, which knocked down state laws against abortion, United Methodism reflected Roe; its 1976 abortion paragraph included this sentence: “We support the legal option of abortion under proper medical procedures.”
Since 1976, many General Conferences have considered and debated petitions that would alter the church’s teaching on abortion. Some passed. Gradually, the paragraph became more skeptical, critical, and prohibitive of abortion. That is, the Social Principle became more protective of the unborn child and mother.
In 2018, while The United Methodist Church’s Social Principle on abortion (Paragraph 161K in the 2016 Book of Discipline) “support[s] the legal option of abortion,” it also contains many phrases and statements that are protective of the unborn and mother. That Social Principle has now been rewritten—thoroughly.
REACH PRO-LIFE PEOPLE WORLDWIDE! Advertise with LifeNews to reach hundreds of thousands of pro-life readers every week. Contact us today.
The Revised Title
The revision of this Social Principle is boldly announced in its title change: from “Abortion” to “Reproductive Health.” Why? “Abortion,” as a title, might be considered too controversial, harsh, specific. In contrast, “Reproductive Health” might be understood as more medical-clinical, gentle, and general.
Against this retitling, four objections can be raised.
First, the new title assumes that abortion is, as a matter of fact, just another medical procedure required for the “reproductive health” of women. However, many inside and outside the medical profession, especially those of various religious persuasions, would disagree.
Second, should not a Social Principle dedicated to abortion, by commonsense, be titled “Abortion?” One would think so: a thing should be called what it is.
Third, the Church through the ages has routinely used the word “abortion;” so United Methodism should regularly use the same word.
And fourth, abortion names a morally significant (and objectionable) incident: that is the taking of the life of an unborn child. To put such a serious incident under the heading of “reproductive health” disguises and diminishes what happens to the child in the womb.
For these reasons, the title “Abortion” should remain.
The Revised Text
According to the three needed improvements reported by the listening sessions, how does the revision measure up?
Is the revision “more theologically grounded?” For starters, the revision mentions God once. But not Jesus Christ. And not the Holy Spirit. The Bible is cited twice, but not quoted. Church tradition is not referenced. The revision seems trapped in the modern worldview of individualism, public health, and social science. It seems anthropocentric (centered on humanity), and neglectful of God and God’s creation, commands, and redemption.
Unlike the standing paragraph, the revision opens up very little to the presence and power of God. So the revision is not “more theologically grounded” than what was revised. Its theological grounding is reduced.
Is the revision “more globally relevant?” To be globally relevant, the revision would need to use terms that are universally understandable and applicable. The Church speaks the most universal language of all. Its words—for example, God and humanity, birth and death, good and evil, joy and suffering, love and loyalty, and so on—appeal to most people worldwide.
While occasionally using such words, the revision reverts to a Westernized, individualized, medicalized mindset. This mindset results in the revision’s inability to affirm the humanity of the unborn. Such thinking is better suited for an international political agency than for a global Christian church. While the standing Social Principle on abortion is imperfect on the matter of global relevance, it lacks the revision’s predetermined Westernized agenda. So, on its global reach, the revision fails.
Is the revision “more succinct?” Yes. The revision is roughly one-third as long as the current Social Principle (approximately 220 words to 660 words).
Editing Out the Gospel of Life
When the standing Social Principle on abortion was revised, what phrases and sentences were deleted? “Sanctity of unborn human life.” “Sacredness of the life and well-being of the mother and the unborn child.” “We support parental, guardian, or other responsible adult notification and consent before abortions can be performed….” “We cannot affirm abortion as an acceptable means of birth control, and we unconditionally reject it as a means of gender selection or eugenics….” “We oppose the use of late-term abortion known as dilation and extraction (partial-birth abortion) and call for the end of this practice….” “We entrust God to provide guidance, wisdom, and discernment….” “We mourn and are committed to promoting the diminishment of high abortion rates.” “They [the Church and its congregations] should also support those crisis pregnancy centers and pregnancy resource centers….” “We particularly encourage the Church, the government, and social service agencies to support and facilitate the option of adoption… .”
These phrases and sentences emerged from historic, ecumenical Christianity’s witness for life and opposition to abortion—and were approved by General Conferences.
If the theologically superficial, globally distant, brief revision is adopted, as is, by the 2020 General Conference, that would basically nullify, in one vote, all General Conference decisions that have been protective of the unborn child and mother. That nullification, in one vote, would: silence the voices of many United Methodists around the world; increase distrust in The United Methodist Church today; set The United Methodist Church more strongly against the consensual teaching of historic, ecumenical Christianity on life and abortion; and lead possibly to the destruction of more unborn children and bring harm to their mothers.
That nullification, in one vote, would not be good. That nullification is unacceptable.
LifeNews Note: Rev. Stallsworth is the pastor of Whiteville (NC) United Methodist Church, the president of the Taskforce of United Methodists on Abortion and Sexuality, and the editor of its quarterly newsletter Lifewatch. This appeared in the June issue of Lifewatch.
Long long ago.
How far they’ve fallen.
I’ve noticed the same thing.
My daughters friends, even the liberal ones, oppose abortion.
These are millennials.
......”Since they look on the presence of a fetus as a foreign object in their bodies, it makes sense to consider removing it as a health procedure”......
And yet when this ‘foreign object’ is ‘wanted’ it suddenly changes to “I’m having A BABY”.....
And largely parishioners who lost faith in the changing PC doctrinal ideology and teachings of the church as the church hierarchy lost their way by taking their eyes off our Lord and Savior. Bible believing Christians lost their respect for the Methodist Church evolving PC orthodoxy and doctrine. For years they've been moving away from the teachings of the Holy Bible and of Gods Holy Word.
The Methodist church on my mom’s street closed it’s doors 2 years ago. The congregation had dwindled to 13. It will probably be torn down to provide additional parking for a bar next-door.
Amen
These are SINNERS.
From their Book of Resolutions:
"7.P. rohibit guns on church property To help prevent gun violence United Methodist congregations are “to display signs that prohibit carrying guns onto church property.” 8. Advocate for regulation Finally, we are called “to advocate at the local and national levels for laws that prevent or reduce gun violence.” Some of these measures include: Universal background checks on all gun purchases, ensuring that all guns are sold through licensed retailers, and establishing a minimum age of 21 years for a gun purchase or possession. Ratifying the Arms Trade Treaty. Prohibiting those convicted of violent crimes, those under restraining order due to the threat of violence, and those with serious mental illness that may be a danger to themselves or others from purchasing a gun. Ensuring greater access to services for those suffering from mental illness. Banning magazine and weapons designed to fire multiple rounds each time the trigger is pulled. Promoting technologies that help law-enforcement agencies trace crime guns and promote public safety.
United Methodist are in my opinion having attended a few services
Diluted by liberals
Southern Methodist is a better choice
Ichabod
Various denominations are listening to the false gospel of the world and becoming secularized and apostate. The United Methodist Church has been on the descent into apostasy for years now.
Wesley and Whitefield are rolling over in their graves.
The UMC is currently conducting a hugely important commission which will propose models for splitting or staying together. 3 basic models have been proposed. They each have their own link at UMC evangelical website:
Traditional Plan
One Church Plan
Connectional Conference Plan
Infanticide is not Christian.
Most of the Methodist churches in the UK are now Mosques.
Indeed.
If the process of paediotomy is to be considered a health-related procedure, who determines whether the object is a malignant growth rather than benign, and how is that decision made?
Is not the presence of such an object usually contingent upon a personal decision to engage in the implementation process, recognizing the potential outcome?
Under what subheading of theology do the decision-making processes fall, if at all? Certainly not soteriology, if the "social gospel" is to include general approval of paediotomy and prevail.
Once the context is that conception has occurred, the moral and social obligations have passed from the “rights” of one life, the mother, to a larger right, the right to life itself and to that western moral and religious obligations have always given the obligations in that right to the most vulnerable, which, if the mothers life is not endangered by the pregancy, have passed to the unborn child.
The mother, as a priority in the scheme of rights, passed the prime of herself as the priority above and over her unborn child (as long as rape did not occur) once her choices led to conception. Abortion is not about one life, the mothers. And if it is about the right to life itself, the unborn is abosultely the most vulnerable, not the mother.
The Left has accomplished a massive and evil job helping churches twist logic and moral facts to abide by a totally secular humanist agenda.
Pathetic! Jesus wept.
It’s the “orgs”. Not the people. That’s the problem.
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.