A friend said to me a few weeks ago, "Jim, the women at 'Re-Imagining' should be grateful to Good News. You took what they said there seriously."
Indeed we did. The "Re-Imagining" handbook ritual included this invocation, "We invoke Sophia, Divine Wisdom.... Her voice has been silenced too long. Let her speak and bless us throughout these days." That must be taken seriously. And of course, when major tenets of the faith are denied, lesbianism celebrated, and some claim all of this to be a "reformation," the church must take it seriously.
The debate of the past few months has been a microcosm of how the church has responded for two decades to those calling for accountability. It retreats into institutional denial, while attacking those seeking change. Missing in the defense of "Re-Imagining" has been attention to the serious substantive theological issues that must be addressed.
All the while, Good News has been charged with using "inflammatory rhetoric," engaging in "irrational and distorted attacks," and creating a climate of “witch-hunting, name-calling, and fear." Those seeking doctrinal faithfulness within the UM Church have been likened to-are you ready?-Jim Jones of Jonestown, David Koresch and the Branch Davidians, the militant sectarians of Northern Ireland, the Third Reich, and those who burned Joan of Arc at the stake. The use of such violent imagery of slaughter reveals a church running out of intellectual capital. All of these images, by the way, were found in UM publications. Sadly, these kinds of responses aren't new.
Then, on March 8, a major statement was released defending the "Re-Imagining" event, entitled "A Time of Hope-A Time of Threat." The document came from ad hoc group of nine women, including Women's Division theological and spiritual executive J. Ann Craig, ecumenical executive Jeanne Audrey Powers, and Bishop Susan Morrison (Philadelphia Area). The statement was signed by six of our female UM bishops and 830 other women.
The statement says, in part, "Public attacks on the leadership, theology, and funding of a recent conference call us to speak out.” Suddenly, an event from which the Women's Division had tried to maintain some distance-it was an ecumenical event, we were not a sponsor, we did not help in the planning-is now boldly supported by many UM women in leadership positions, including bishops.
There are several points regarding this controversy that need to be clarified. First, those disagreeing with the "Re-Imagining" Conference are not denying women the right to do theology or serve the church in leadership posit ' ions. That is pure smoke screen. In fact, a number of UM bishops are distressed about the theology and liturgy of "Re-Imagining." Are they denying women the right of full participation in the church? Certainly not.
Second, "A Time of Hope" also recasts the controversy into one of female victimization, diverting attention from the theological issues still begging to be addressed. Our concerns have not been offered in order to "discredit and malign women." What we have done is to protest a gathering that "discredited and maligned" Jesus Christ, foundational Christian doctrine, and the church's moral teaching.
Third, we all deserve to know whether the signatories, by signing the statement, are giving tacit approval to the conference's objectionable theology and liturgy. The fact that six UM bishops signed the document makes this question all the more serious.
At the March 8 press conference to release the statement, the Rev. Beryl Ingram-Ward, one of the nine authors of the statement, offered a startling defense of Delores Williams' highly controversial statement: "I don't think we need an atonement at all .... I don't think we need folks hanging on crosses and blood dripping and weird stuff." That statement was so offensive, one would expect no further reference to it. Not so. The Religious News Service reported from the press conference, "In light of the violence and abuse directed toward women based on their gender, Ingram-Ward questioned serving a 'Father-God' who willfully kills his own child, a reference to Jesus' crucifixion. 'How can we continue to believe a loving Parent would do this when human parents who do this are sent to prison?"'
Well, you can't say we weren't warned. "A Time of Hope" says that understandings of sacrifice, atonement and martyrdom "are being reexamined." In the case of the above remark, atonement is rejected.
Some might call that "reformation." We see it as an abandonment of the doctrine at the heart of the Christian faith.