In the wake of enactment of costly and controversial health-care legislation that will significantly broaden the federal government’s power over the U.S. health-care system — as well as over states and individuals — United Methodist bishops and other church leaders are attempting to mollify laity and clergy unhappy about the UMC’s role in supporting the bill.
In recent days, bishops, district superintendents and pastors have issued letters attempting to clarify the church’s position and explain the work of the General Board of Church and Society, the denominational agency that played a key role in pushing for a larger federal role in the allocation of health-care resources and for federal mandates on insurance companies and individual Americans.
On Palm Sunday, Speaker Pelosi got a standing ovation at San Francisco's Glide Memorial UMC
Just before the bill passed the House of Representatives on Sunday, March 21, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi singled out the United Methodist Church as a key supporter of the bill.
“[M]ore than 350 organizations, representing Americans of every age, every background, every part of the country…have endorsed this legislation,” she said on the House floor. “Our coalition ranges from the AARP…to the United Methodist Church.”
The speaker’s comments set off a firestorm of reaction from United Methodists not pleased with the legislation or the sharply partisan process by which it was adopted. (The bill, which according to polls was opposed by a majority of voters, failed to garner a single Republican vote in either the House or Senate; in addition 34 House Democrats voted against the bill, as did three Democratic senators on final passage.)
The morning after Speaker Pelosi’s remarks, church leaders from pastors to bishops began receiving calls and e-mails from concerned United Methodists demanding an explanation. A few laity and clergy posted their concerns in the “blogosphere.”
“I am so disgusted with our denomination,” one commenter wrote on the blog of the North Carolina Conference. “While I love my local church and the people in my community, I will not financially support a denomination that thinks [it] can speak for me [in] a political forum.”
Tim Stevens
A prominent United Methodist pastor noted that the speaker’s remarks about UM advocacy for the controversial bill could further harm the denomination’s attempts reverse decades of membership losses.
“In my opinion, Speaker Pelosi’s comments give [many] Americans another reason not to be Methodist,” wrote Tim Stevens, executive pastor at Indiana’s Granger Community Church, on his Leading Smart blog.
“I do everything I can to help thousands of Methodist pastors and leaders every year…. It saddens me that the United Methodist Church is often known primarily for its political positions that have nothing to do with making disciples of Christ,” he wrote.
A clergy commenter responding to Mr. Stevens post was more circumspect, but echoed Mr. Stevens’ concerns. “I’m a UM pastor who has had to walk a fine line between having my own opinions and expressing them publicly. I fear that if I side with one or the other publicly I may damage possible opportunities to engage someone that doesn’t yet know Jesus,” he wrote. “I will say this though: The handling of this bill was shady at best and to attach the name of a denomination to it does no one any good.”
∞
Strictly speaking, the United Methodist Church did not officially “endorse” the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, a point made by bishops and others who responded to concerned church members (several such responses are linked below).
However, the UM General Board of Church of Church and Society (GBCS), an official agency of the denomination, did play a lead role among religious organizations in pushing for a stronger federal role in health care. That emphasis was tantamount to lobbying for legislation likely to be embraced by Congressional liberals and opposed by those who preferred a more free-market approach to addressing issues of health care availability and affordability.
As part of its advocacy, in December GBCS orchestrated a letter-writing and telephone campaign aimed at persuading Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) — a United Methodist — to vote for the same controversial legislation that passed the House last week. On Christmas Eve, six days after that focused campaign began, the Senate passed the bill. Sen. Nelson — the final senator to make up his mind — voted “yes.”
(After enduring a strong constituent backlash for his Christmas Eve vote, Sen. Nelson voted no when a slightly revised health bill came back before the Senate this week, but this time his vote did not affect the outcome.)
On the House side, GBCS’ Faith in Action newsletter noted earlier this month that “[h]elp is needed in the next few weeks as Congress deliberates over final passage of critical health-care protections.”
GBCS urged United Methodists to “contact your members of Congress” and “support health care reform.” In the context of the legislative process, GBCS — without actually endorsing the bill by name — was essentially endorsing the bill that had already passed the Senate and was about to come before the House.
Given the General Board of Church and Society’s clear attempt to sway members of Congress to “support health care reform” in the weeks leading up the March 21 House vote, it seems reasonable that Speaker Pelosi (who is not a United Methodist) would construe GBCS’ advocacy as an actual endorsement by the United Methodist Church of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, especially since GBCS is an official agency of the denomination.
∞
In response to church member concerns about role of the UMC in passage of the legislation, Bishop Gregory Palmer, president of the UM Council of Bishops, issued a letter that characterized the role of GBCS as simply one of “monitoring Congressional action” and “informing [Congressional leaders] of the church’s stance consistent with General Conference action.”
Likewise, Bishop D. Max Whitfield of the Northwest Texas Conference insisted that GBCS simply promoted principles, not specific legislation.
[T]he General Board of Church and Society has worked diligently to promote key principles of health care reform. Principles like access to health care, for all people, have been promoted by the UMC for many years, and it was behind these principles, not any specific legislation, that the GBCS put their endorsement….
General Conference believed reform was essential, and in 2008, they did pass a Resolution urging reform of the health care system. However, that resolution did not advocate for any particular piece of legislation.
Other bishops issued similar letters, including Bishop Larry Goodpaster (Western North Carolina), Bishop Scott Jones (Kansas East/Kansas West) and Bishop Janice Riggle Huie (Texas).
Meanwhile, the United Methodist News Service released a commentary piece by freelance writer and retired New York Conference clergy member Rich Peck, who downplayed the fact that GBCS may have used money from local churches to fund its efforts on behalf of health-care legislation.
“Very little United Methodist money is involved in advocacy efforts,” he wrote. “Only 3.1 cents of every dollar goes to support all the ministries of the denomination, and only a portion of that amount supports the entire program of the Board of Church and Society.”
∞
It is true that the 2008 General Conference, meeting in Fort Worth, Texas, did pass legislation related to health care, as several bishops noted in their statements on the health bill, but it remains an open question as to whether the Conference “believed reform was essential,” as was argued by Bishop Whitfield.
General Conference '08 (UMNS photo)
As detailed in “How Did the UMC Come to Define Health Care As a ‘Right’?” (includes audio from GC ’08), there was no floor debate at the 2008 General Conference on any of the heath-care-related resolutions.
Instead, three such resolutions were hurriedly passed — in a single, omnibus vote — on the final night of the Conference as delegates rushed to complete action on nearly 50 legislative items.
Less than four minutes transpired between the time the health-care resolutions were presented and the vote was taken. One of the resolutions consisted of nearly 6,000 words (stricken language and new language), or roughly nine pages of single-spaced type.
That lengthy resolution, “Health Care For All in the United States” (now Resolution #3201 in the 2008 edition of the UM Book of Resolutions), was authored by Jim Winker, head of the General Board of Church and Society — the same agency that used the resolution as a basis for its involvement in advocating what became the controversial and unpopular legislation passed by Congress and signed by President Obama.
∞
The lack of adequate time to debate controversial items at the General Conference tends to create confusion on the Conference floor, leaving delegates unsure about what they are voting on. The result is there is little confidence that the outcome of certain votes actually reflects the will of the Conference.
At a November 2009 “dialogue” with the Council of Bishop’s Unity Task Force, held at Lake Junaluska, N.C., a group of United Methodist renewal leaders focused on the time-pressure issue as one of the key “tension points” of the General Conference — as noted in this excerpt from the renewal leaders’ written report (PDF).
[P]aragraphs 15 and 16 of the [United Methodist Book of] Discipline state that the responsibilities of the [General] Conference are primarily legislative. We believe that sufficient time for debate and action on all the legislation that delegates are charged to address should take precedent over other matters….
[Near] the end of the 2008 GC, the numbers of speeches and length of speeches allowed for legislation were shortened due to time constraints, leaving many important pieces of legislation…without proper debate before voting.
The health-care resolutions, presented on the frenetic final night of the 2008 conference, were among the pieces of legislation that did not receive “proper debate.”
The renewal leaders also voiced concerns about controversial items being placed on “consent calendars” to be voted on in omnibus fashion with no debate.
It is worth noting that the United Methodist Church first went on record declaring health care to be a “right” via a consent-calendar vote at the 1996 General Conference in Denver, Colorado.
After approval by committee, the matter was added to Consent Calendar A02 (PDF—see item 107) and was never specifically presented on the Conference floor, much less debated. Via a vote that approved 108 other disparate items at the same time (see PDF linked above), the assertion that health care is a right became official United Methodist policy.
The leaders who met with the Unity Task Force in November included, among others, Dr. Billy Abraham of the Perkins School of Theology at SMU; Liza Kittle of RENEW, a women’s ministry network; Tom Lambrecht, coordinator of the Renewal and Reform Coalition at the 2008 General Conference; Patricia Miller, executive director of the United Methodist Confessing Movement; and Rob Renfroe, president and publisher of Good News.
∞
Below is a sampling of comments, from clergy and laity, regarding the UMC’s involvement with the health bill. These comments are excerpted from various blogs and have been edited for length.
|
From a comment above: I am very happy that my church supports this bill. I am one of those people who is hopeful for some benefit from this bill. Should only the wealthy be entitled to health care? Why should Christians stand against a benefit that would help me and other less fortunate people?
Please name those neighbors who should provide the wealth to cover your health care or the care for the unfortunate. And explain where the Bible declares that one neighbor should be compelled by government proxy to provide any good or service to another, even if the other is poor and unfortunate.
From a comment above: “I have a meeting with my pastor today. If action is not taken to do something about the political lobbying of the UMC, then I will have to find a new church home. I will deeply miss my church family.”
Action is not going to be taken by your pastor, or your DS, or your bishop. They’ve had 40 years to cause a fuss, I don’t think they are gonna start tomorrow.
The GBCS and UMC have been engaged in this progressive politics for several decades. The Pelosi remarks have merely received more attention than the many equally heinous activities of the GBCS, GBGM, Women’s Division, individual bishops, Council of Bishops, your conference Board of Church and Society, etc.
If your pastor gives you the “we are very, very, very, very far removed from the GBCS” and “we are a big, big, big, big tent” and “the GBCS does not speak for the church, only the General Conference speaks for the church” cop outs, then suggest that if your local church is so disconnected and far-removed from the GBCS, then surely the pastor would not mind if the local church stopped sending apportionments.
Yep, the GBCS is definitely supporting the liberal causes and they are perceived to speak for the entire UMC. That is a travesty! Wake up everyone! The UM churches that are growing are those in Africa — conservative in their values and morals and staunchly supportive of the WHOLE Bible, not just bits and pieces! They recognize God’s love to be sure, but they also recognize His holiness — the true church needs to be a proponent of BOTH.
I see the UMC in the U.S. reflected in the words of Jesus to the Church of Thyatira (Rev.3:18-29). They had good deeds, love, faith and service, but they tolerated sexual immorality in their church. Jesus said, “I am he who searches hearts and minds, and I will repay each of you according to your deeds.”
Though much good is accomplished in the UMC, the few who are tainting its reputation by political activism are the ones who seem to get others’ attention — and, unfortunately, those who want to keep the church pure and holy are leaving. If the GBCS and the hierarchy of the church continue in this vein, a BIG split will befall the UMC in the future.
We are so glad to realize that many other Methodists are feeling the same pain we are over this issue. We have been silently weighing what action we need to take to ensure that this liberal board does not continue to promote their political views and push them as the views of the United Methodist Church ever again.
We will be meeting with our minister in the next few days for his thoughts on how to address this problem. If there are no answers coming very soon, we will be visiting other churches seeking a new denomination church home.
Thanks to MethodistThinker for providing a compendium of facts that you will not get anywhere else.
So many folks in the UM church try to ignore what’s going on at the highest levels of leadership, if they even want to know. Many pastors don’t want to be “controversial,” so they take a “see-no-evil” approach. But the longer we ignore these problems the worse they’re going to get, just like a health problem.
Tell your friends about MethodistThinker.com.
It is so good to see we are not alone. I’ve been a lifelong member of the Methodist church and now my husband and I are prayerfully considering whether we can continue in the church that we love after the stance taken on the healthcare bill. We simply do not want to financially support any institution with ties to what we consider to be the most morally repugnant piece of legislation ever passed — and against the will of the majority of the American people to boot.
Shame on the UMC for this. Our hearts are broken and for the first time in our lives we are not proud to be Methodists, and we probably won’t be for long.
My husband has attended the UMC his entire life, and I have been a member for 52 years. Today, we have withdrawn our membership.
What the UMC has become has shocked and sickened us! We cannot condone the hierarchy’s socialist and liberal political agenda. The General Board of Church and Society is nothing more than a leftist liberal wing of the UMC and the Democrat Party. We believe in the sanctity of life and the GBCS has time and time again, by words and actions, made it quite clear, that they do NOT!
It is a very sad day for us.
This is a portion of the letter sent via e-mail by Bishop Hassinger back in October:
As Congress continues to debate health care reform and the public option, I urge you to hold in your prayers all of the vulnerable who depend upon the just action of our representatives and senators — the young, the poor, the ill and the unemployed, among others.
When considering the various health care reform proposals, ask: who is insured, who is still out? Who pays, who profits? Whose voices were heard as legislation was written, whose weren’t heard?
I encourage all of you to contact your senators and representatives in support of just health care reform including a public option. Consider taking additional, constructive actions such as hosting an education night at your church for the community, inviting a civil discourse or holding a prayer vigil for health care justice.
Jesus called us to care for the poor, the sick, the powerless and the vulnerable. Jesus healed as an act of mercy, compassion and grace. He did this not because God required it, but because he recognized that to live fully as the children of God, we must act as God desires.
As Christ’s disciples can we do any less?
Bishop Susan W. Hassinger
Albany Episcopal Area
I agree with Karen and the others: a part of me is mourning the loss of my church. I was “born and raised” as a Methodist, married in a Methodist Church, and my children and I have taught Sunday School classes there.
I remember years ago asking why the church did not discuss abortion or politics, and was told that we did want to “alienate” new comers. I now believe this was a ruse: the church has had stances on these issues and was covertly lobbying for those beliefs with our money. But, they didn’t want to alienate us by preaching about these issues and having to laud the efforts that were being put forth by these clandestine group(s) within the church.
I am looking for a new church home, but I have to admit I am moving slowly in hopes the Methodist Church will fire certain people and disband certain boards in response to the members’ disgust.
I was born and raised a Methodist, as were both of my parents and both sets of grandparents on both sides. Though I don’t attend church regularly anymore, my parents are regular worshipers at a small country church. The general feeling of the majority of their congregation is the same as my parents and mine, we were shocked, horrified and dismayed when we heard about the UMC’s support of the health care bill.
While I firmly believe in the Constitutional right of freedom of religion and the right to exercise it, I also believe there is a line between politics and religion that needs to be recognized and respected. The UMC has not only crossed this line, they have leapt way over it. They had no business supporting such a bill and they overstepped their boundaries. Those individuals on the UMC board and in charge need to realize that their actions are intended to speak for their overall congregation around the United States and therefore they need to take into careful consideration who or what they support either financially or vocally.
My parents had voiced some reasonable disappointment over the UMC’s more liberal viewpoints on many social issues in the past few years, but this may have been the straw that broke the camel’s back for them. They are seriously considering withdrawing their membership and leaving the church for “greener pastures.” I have not withdrawn my membership as of yet, since I’ve not been really using it in the past several years. I too am waiting to see if the fallout from the angry voices of those opposed to this changes anything.
If it doesn’t, I can promise the leaders of the UMC, they will lose yet another member. I cannot in good conscience continue to remain with a church that supports political ideals that I do not agree with and wouldn’t support myself personally.
I am glad to see we are not alone in our feelings. We had no idea the Board of Church and Society existed before March 21 and we have been members for over 15 years.
Our family has decided to leave the church and have our names taken off the roll. We have no idea where we will go but we’ll be very careful to do our research before joining another church.
We are appalled by the action taken in the name of the United Methodist Church! We have been pleased to have been Methodists for the past 28-30 years, all this time in the same church. Our church and church family have been a very important part of our lives.
What gave the GBCS the authority to speak for all Methodists? In addition, when God handed down the Ten Commandments to Moses, one was “Do Not Commit Murder.” When did abortion cease to be murder?
We are now prayerfully considering leaving the Methodist Church which is a heart-wrenching decision for us. However, we cannot condone such actions nor can we give our money when it is used in part in this manner.
Lord, forgive us!
Gwen and Murry Nance
San Antonio, Texas
Please read Mark Tooley’s Taking Back the United Methodist Church to see just how liberal thinking has overtaken UMC. What confounds me is how someone gets selected bishop with the beliefs documented in his book. One can also go to IRD website for more information.
When I sent my pastor information like this, she ignores my emails. Except, in one instance she gave me a snippet from an e-mail that said GBCS only gets pennies on the dollar. It didn’t say that adds up to $5million! Nor did it say that GBCS owns the UM Building near the U.S. Capitol and gets rents for space there. What might be the rental rate be for space on Capitol Hill?
While I don’t side with the GBCS, I can certainly see that the General Conference has given more than enough permission for them to “represent” us in this health-care debate. We allow these seemingly harmless resolutions to pass, then watch them come back to bite us.
Further, we can’t fall back on the old complaint of “last-minute legislation.” In my own Annual Conference, I have often seen such liberal legislation delayed until the end, when many folks have left early, and those remaining don’t have the time or stomach for serious debate. I have two thoughts:
1) Are we to assume that conservatives always leave Conference early, and liberals stay to the end, thus skewing the vote? My observation is that people of all stripes cut out early, and if we were to know that serious legislation is a foot, we might want to stay to support it, or fight it. The result is the same: those who really want to vote, stay. Those who don’t care much, leave.
2) If this is a ploy of the left, then such a ploy is open to the right as well. Might we have some legislation that could benefit from limited debate?
I think the real problem here isn’t how legislation is enacted, but the complacent hearts of conservative voters. If we were as passionate about our side of the debate as our opponents, we would stay, vote, and participate in debate. We would enter the political process (at ALL levels) that controls this kind of thing. Most of us don’t have the stomach to stand before a microphone and argue against “health care for all.” The left knows this.
Wrapping small changes in noble language is how you get big changes.
Jerry S makes a good argument that conservatives should be more involved in the politics of conference actions. I think it was G.K. Chesterton who said something to the effect that liberals go around breaking things that conservatives are too timid to repair.
Even worse, Modern Liberals, in moving further away from Judeo-Christian moral foundations, have devolved into mindless statists who have essentially taken a wrecking ball to traditionalist viewpoints and institutions. Despite protestations to the contrary, those advocating contemporary liberalism tend to be the squeaky wheels and are more aggressive in pushing their agenda.
Still, I don’t think countering one “ploy” with another is the answer. The answer involves basic fairness and fidelity to the traditions of our faith. The “ploy” approach smacks of immaturity and distasteful political maneuvering.
Jerry S suggests that those with a liberal agenda would be no more likely to stay to the end of conference than would conservatives. That sounds reasonable, unless there was some coordinated effort on the part of the more liberal attendees.
Bishop Janice Riggle Huie’s letter in the UM Reporter was close to a disgrace. She attempted to defend the position taken by the GBCS by only telling the non-controversial “good things” the GBCS does in representing the UMC. She conveniently left out their statements on abortion and homosexuality.
I find it dishonest to use such half-truths when trying to sway the laity who (it appears) church leaders would prefer to keep in the dark about the left-leaning positions being taken by the church.
Everyone in our local church is disappointed by the actions of the corporate UMC and we will look for ways to end our support of activities that are not biblically based.
My wife and I realized the United Methodist Church was not for us anymore when our (former) pastor made it clear that he is politically liberal. The breaking point was a church newsletter that announced support for the controversial healthcare bill. The newsletter also noted that many in our conference were going to a march in support of ILLEGAL immigrants.
We have decided the United Methodist Church does not need our offerings. How could we use use money God has entrusted to us to side with the liberals who have such animosity toward religious conservatives, with those who consistently are pro-abortion, with those who don’t care if people are accountable (like certain unions), with those who allow the abuse of the welfare system…? (I could go on and on.)
The Church should pray for our country and its leaders and otherwise remain neutral when it comes to political issues on which there is no clear Christian position.
I did not realize I belonged to a Democratic Party Lobbying organization, so I have changed my membership from the UMC to the Republican National Committee.
I have been a Methodist for most of my 61 years. I have served as a pastor in several UM churches. The upper leadership of this denomination is totally out of touch with the people in the pews.
Lobbying for the healthcare bill is NOT what our offerings should be supporting! Are you also aware that Claremont School of Theology (a Methodist school for training UM pastors) is now also training Islamic clergy and soon will be training Hindu and Buddhist clergy!!?? Are you aware that a general agency of the UMC has promoted sex outside marriage as “moral” for single clergy??!!
God help us. I don’t plan to EVER set foot in a UMC again!!!!!!!!!
Several hundred years after prophets such as Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Hosea had denounced the sacrificial slaughter of animals, Jesus carried out what is called the Cleansing of the Temple. It was just before Passover and he disrupted the buying and selling of animals being purchased for slaughter.
Christian scholars and religious leaders continue to ignore biblical denunciations — they also obscure the reason for Christ’s assault on the system. It was the cult of sacrifice that Jesus tried to dismantle, not the system of monetary exchange.
“Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s.”
Just as in the time of Christ, Christian scholars and religious leaders continue to ignore biblical denunciations — this one for thousands of years! Political activities, political lobbying groups, how much tax, etc. are the realm of Caesar.
God does answer prayer.