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.
June issue of “Lifewatch”
https://www.lifewatch.org/uploads/9/9/6/3/99632932/lifewatch_newsletter_-_june_2018.pdf
The Methodist Church has lost its way.
?? What is happening in the Methodist Church?
This is NOT the Methodist church my Granny attended!!!
I suppose that’s why my local Methodist church is now a Buddhist temple.
So “Reproductive Health” means terminating the process of reproduction. Orwellian.
I know Methodist churches in my area that’s had to close and consolidate. They try to say members moved away but I know the real reason. Same as the schools, no people to join since Roe vs Wade passed they all DEAD! No new members to join. What did people think would happen long term if you killed all the babies? No they only thinking short term and how it made their lives easier in the here and now.
The Bible talks about people being deceived and going after things that tickle their ears. It should not come as a surprise. But the Methodist Church, as well as some other “mainline churches”, have stopped being a Christian church when they teach things that go against God’s Word.
I’m willing to bet my Q decoder ring that Methodists oppose the death penalty.
UMC / ex-Methodist ping!
Time to yank their tax-exempt status, as they can no longer make any claim to be "Christian"
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.
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.”
Looks like the "United Methodist Church" never really had its way straight in the first place.
I said the same thing, my grandmother was a Methodist.
I don’t know why so many are caving on abortion, if you talk to the young women they are against abortion. The twenty somethings I am around are totally against all abortion, no ifs ands or buts, and they openly call it murder. I have several on my social media and they are very outspoken against abortion.
It seems to me the tide is turning against abortion, yet religions now seem willing to accept it? What is up with that? Technology has put the pro abortion mantra of “just a clump of cells” into the fiction category- most have seen high quality early ultrasounds, obviously a baby.
Abortion is murder. No religious group should condone it. How hard is that?
Donating to the United Methodist church is donating to abortion lobbyists. The UM’s lobbyist department (General Board of Church and Society) has been on the baby-butchering side of just about every abortion debate you can remember for the past 4+ decades. If you hate sex trafficking and think an abortion clinic in your state ought to notify the police and/or the parents of a 13 year old when her 40-year old “boyfriend” brings her into the clinic, too bad for her if the state didn’t put in place parent notification laws. The UM church fought for her “reproductive rights” in your state and won.
Same for abortion in Obamacare, abortion done in military hospitals, partial-birth abortion, etc. Same for LGBTQWERTY “rights”. When the Christian baker had to go all the way to the Supreme Court to keep from being punished for not making a poop sex cake, he was fighting “friends of the court” briefs filed by the UM church.
Your decoder ring is safe.
“The United Methodist Church maintains a strong stand against capital punishment as exemplified in the Book of Discipline, ... When governments implement the death penalty (capital punishment), then the life of the convicted person is devalued and all possibility of change in that person’s life ends.”
https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/node/1707
I’m sick to my very soul. What has become of my beloved Church???
The Bible talks about people being deceived and going after things that tickle their ears.
Exo 32:5 Aaron saw how excited the people were, so he built an altar in front of the calf. Then he announced, “Tomorrow will be a festival to the LORD!”
I encourage all to read the above in context.
Poor old Aaron, all the people did was complain. No life in the “church” it was dead. Finally some excitement in the people (social justice), he thinks he can turn that in the right direction by building an alter to the LORD (capital L, capital O, capital R, capital D - so we know the intention) in front of it.
Exo 32:24 So I told them, ‘Whoever has gold jewelry, take it off.’ When they brought it to me, I simply threw it into the fire—and out came this calf!”
sound like the excuses of RC and P leadership? Aarons human nature kicks in . None of us are exempt.
Now the rest of the story as Paul Harvey would say:
Exo 32:20 He took the calf they had made and burned it. Then he ground it into powder, threw it into the water, and forced the people to drink it.
You are going to eat this god and shit him out (pardon my french). Putting the alter in front of the abomination didn’t work.
Now God spoke to Aaron directly many times and Aaron led his people astray. So much for infallibility of church leadership. Where does that leave us?
On a humorous note, I think Moses knew that if he threw it in the stream some would go pan it out to recover it, but the Israelites wouldn’t go get it out of the outhouse, at least not right away...…………………………...
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.