The Scriptural authority of leaders has limits, based on other Scripture. Do you think Dietrich Bonhoffer should have submitted to the “authority” of Adolf Hitler?

There’s a lot of subjectivity in how the GBCS chooses to interpret and implement General Conference Resolutions, particularly resolutions that the GBCS, by whatever questionable methods, has had some hand in sponsoring and bringing to a vote. That’s where the politics comes in.

I believe the GBCS-encouraged support for the radical Religious Coalition For Reproductive Choice would dry up if rank-and-file United Methodists were fully aware of what GBCS does. Even some denominations considered more liberal than United Methodism have distanced themselves from it.

There’s an old saying (I believe it is attributed to the late Sen. Daniel P. Moynihan) that goes something like this: “You have the right to your own opinions, but not to your own facts.” I think we need to pay heed to that admonition.

Editor’s note: Comments on this post are now closed.

I also hear your criticism of how decisions are made at General Conference, the highest decision-making body in the denomination in which you are a member (and the only body that can speak on behalf of the denomination). As I understand, the General Conference (against your wishes) explicitly decided to support the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice (RCRC). Understandably, I can see how you would feel betrayed by the General Conference, resulting in feelings of mistrust.

Nevertheless, the General Conference is in a position of leadership and authority over the denomination. Hebrews 13:17 commands us to “Obey your leaders and submit to their authority.” God’s command is clear (whether or not we agree is of no consequence). This is scriptural citation to support RCRC. Submitting to the authority of church leaders is also an orthodox/historic/traditional Christian tenet. Your previous post indicates that IRD does not support the orthodox Christian tenant of submitting to the authority of leaders, case and point when it comes to support of RCRC.

Another mandate by the General Conference to the GBCS is to “speak its convictions.” While you may not agree with Mr. Winkler on his political positions nor his interpretations of Scripture, I believe you would agree he has spoken his convictions. He has submitted to the authorities regarding this mandate and the one to support RCRC. He has complied with both scripture (Hebrews 13:17) and the Discipline (which calls for GBCS to implement the General Conference resolutions) when he supports RCRC. So why the slanderous remarks toward Mr. Winkler when he is upholding an orthodox Christian tenet?

Obviously, the ecumenical views of the IRD are not the collective, democratic views of the United Methodist Church. Of the resolutions that were initiated by IRD staff, only a small percentage were approved by General Conference. This leads me to question how in tune the IRD really is to the United Methodist Church? Can reform of the social witness of the United Methodist Church really occur through disparaging remarks toward those in full communion, mistrust of authority and slanderous remarks?

Editor’s note: The Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice was founded in 1973 to “to safeguard the newly won constitutional right to abortion.” Since then, according to the group’s web site, RCRC has “grown and expanded to meet new challenges and threats to reproductive freedom.” RCRC supports taxpayer-funded abortion.

The United Methodist Book of Discipline says the UMC “cannot affirm abortion as an acceptable means of birth control, and we unconditionally reject it as a means of gender selection.”

A 2005 study found that 74 percent of women having abortions chose to abort their pregnancies because having a child “would dramatically change my life.” This suggests, at a minimum, that nearly three-fourths of abortions are for reasons of birth control. A 2002 study found that 54 percent of women having abortions had used contraception during the month they became pregnant, suggesting that abortion is widely seen as a birth control “back-up plan.”

At the 2008 General Conference, the debate and vote on whether to remain affiliated with the Reproductive Coalition on Reproductive Choice was held on the final day of the conference. The vote to stay affiliated with RCRC passed by a vote of 52 percent to 48 percent, with 802 of 988 delegates voting.

For a transcript of the 2008 General Conference debate on participation in RCRC, see the PDF file here, starting on page 2698.

Mr. Winkler is at variance with both Scripture and the Discipline when he endorses gay marriage and supports aggressively pro-abortion organizations such as the Religious Coalition For Reproductive Choice. I see no Scriptural citations by the GBCS that justify such activities (because there aren’t any).

The stealth methods used by the GBCS to forward its agendas at General Conference are certainly not in keeping with a truly democratic, transparent agenda. I cite as just one example the vote at General Conference that was called after voters unsympathetic to the GBCS agenda had left the conference. And how the GBCS gets many things get on the consent agenda is another story.

I recently asked my Sunday School class of some 14 or 15 people (either members or regular UM church attenders) if they knew what the GBCS was. ONLY ONE HAD EVEN HEARD OF IT! I said little more, resisting the urge to criticize the GBCS, but I did point them to the GBCS website. I have to conclude that the GBCS gets it biggest assist not from democratic processes but from the ignorance and apathy of rank and file United Methodists.

The direction of the GBCS is determined mainly by the political inclinations of its leadership. The mental manipulation required to justify that direction using Scriptural references borders on the ridiculous.

The same is not true of the IRD. It is perplexing to me why the IRD supports democratic process in the church only when the results of that process swing in their favor? Irrespective of their name, is the IRD really in support of true democracy, regardless of the outcome?

Furthermore, the GBCS’ direction is determined by those in full communion with The United Methodist Church. The same cannot be said of the IRD, which has (based on the research of the late Rev. Dr. Andrew Weaver) a significant portion of the board of directors comprised of prominent Catholics — whose purpose is to reform mainline Protestant denominations? Seems to me like the persecution of Protestants during the Reformation hasn’t ended yet!

In addition, the stances taken by the GBCS and Jim Winkler are consistently supported by specific Biblical references. In contrast, the IRD is focused on reverting back to Christian historical or traditional stances and beliefs (sometimes referred to as “Christian orthodoxy”). My observation is that the IRD’s articles rarely if ever make reference to specific Biblical passages. Which is the higher authority: the Bible or traditions of man? Isn’t the Bible the ultimate source of “Christian orthodoxy?”

Finally, financial information of the GBCS is widely available on its own website, from the General Council on Finance and Administration and publicly published for the General Conference. The same is not true of the IRD. While many are not aware of who the GBCS is and what the GBCS does (or how they spend their money), it is not because the information is not available.

Editor’s note: The commenter states that the “purpose” of the Institute on Religion and Democracy is “reform[ing] mainline Protestant denominations.”

The actual mission statement of IRD, as posted on the group’s web site, notes that the IRD is “an ecumenical alliance of U.S. Christians working to reform their churches’ social witness, in accord with biblical and historic Christian teachings, to contribute to the renewal of democratic society at home and abroad.”

The IRD site notes that the organization “reflect[s] genuine biblical ecumenism, that is, unity across denominational boundaries based on a shared belief in the truth of Christian orthodoxy. This includes mainline and other evangelical Protestants, Roman Catholics, and Eastern Orthodox Christians working together in common cause.”

There’s a political component to that with which people are free to disagree , but the IRD does not purport to represent any specific denomination or church, and those who support IRD financially do so voluntarily with full knowledge of the activities and positions of the organization. The decline in membership of mainline denominations was in full swing before the IRD was ever even conceived. Indeed, it was formed partly as a response to declining membership.

The GBCS, in contrast, supposedly represents the United Methodist Church as its “social witnessing” political arm. Many United Methodists have no idea what the GBCS does, and, consequently, where their money goes. Unfortunately, the leadership of the GBCS has increasingly — and cavalierly — taken advantage of that fact by using good-faith contributions made through local congregations to promote what often appear to be personal political agendas over historical spiritual ones. I believe that conclusion can be supported purely on objective grounds, apart from any personal or ideological biases.

I used to have much contact with Mark Tooley when I was on the staff of the General Board of Church and Society. I repeatedly asked him to invite me to the board meetings of the IRD to discuss with the board some areas that I thought GBCS and IRD could agree…. The GBCS has open meetings, Mark Tooley’s IRD has secret (at least to me) closed meetings. Which is the more democratic?….

In my current work, I work regularly with very conservative groups that my organization disagrees with on some issues…. And all of them will work with other groups (even liberal groups) when they share a common goal…. Christ and St Paul urge us to pray for our enemies and treat them as we would wish to be treated. Because of my Love of Jesus, I try my best to always keep Mark Tooley in my prayers. It’s not easy, but being a Christian is not supposed to be easy.

If he could gather this much fodder to slam the Institute On Religion and Democracy (theird.org), then he’d really have his hands full with the General Board of Church and Society! That is, if he were to “investigate” them with the same kind of zeal!

I was struck by this statement by the self-appointed “researcher” into the IRD: “Everybody of conscience has been attacked by these people.” Meaning, I suppose, that the GBCS and revisionist bishops are the only “people of conscience” in the church.

That excludes those of us who don’t like what the GBCS does when it goes against official doctrine or advocates un-Christian policies and causes. Also excluded would be those of us who hold traditional, Wesleyan beliefs. Since the IRD hasn’t attacked us, that must mean we are not people of conscience, since “everybody of conscience” has been attacked.

View it and make a judgment for yourself, as thousands of loyal and faithful United Methodists have.

Blessings,

Steve

Editor’s note: Steven D. Martin is the producer of Renewal or Ruin? His Tennessee-based company, Vital Visions, “fund[s] productions for television and theatrical release that explore dynamics of faith and culture.”