The following is the statement issued by the Women’s Division in response to inquires about their participation in "Re-Imagining."
Both recent fund-raising letters of Good News and RENEW/Evangelical Coalition of United Methodist Women and the January/February 1994 issue of Good News magazine attack the Women's Division of the General Board of Global Ministries for participation and "support" of the "Re-Imagining" Conference. A December 15 letter addressed to members of the Council of Bishops says the event was "supported officially" and suggests that the Women's Division had "full knowledge of what the contents would be" and states that if this is true, "the Council of Bishops must consider how to call the Women's Division to accountability."
Staff and directors who attended this event are all mature women able to make discriminating theological judgments. They are aware that presence at an ecumenical event does not indicate approval of everything that happens. Good News and RENEW had their own representatives present.
The Women's Division is committed to ecumenical dialogue and freedom to discuss a wide range of theological ideas among Christians of different backgrounds. Attendance at ecumenical events includes the risk of encountering ideas that are not 'in harmony with United Methodist positions. For example, the expressions of some participants concerning homosexuality differs from our official United Methodist position. Hearing does not mean agreement. The Women's Division operates within the framework of the United Methodist Discipline and its theological statement.
Now to some questions and answers.
Who sponsored the event and why were Women's Division staff and directors present? The "Re-Imagining" Conference was sponsored by the St. Paul, Minneapolis, and Minnesota Councils of Churches, November 4-7, 1993, to mark the mid-way point in the "Ecumenical Decade—Churches in Solidarity with Women." It was held in Minneapolis.
The United Methodist Church has been supporting participation in "Decade" events for several years. A 1 988 United Methodist General Conference resolution called upon all United Methodists to "participate fully in the 'Ecumenical Decade—Churches in Solidarity with Women' (1988-98)." In 1993 the United Methodist Council of Bishops strongly recommended activities on the implementation of the Decade’s goals in every annual conference.
Women's Division directors were informed about the event and those who wished to attend had their expenses paid. Conference vice presidents were offered the opportunity to apply for a limited number of scholarships to the conference.
- Did the Women's Division sponsor the conference? No. It did not sponsor the event and it was not represented in the planning. It's only funding was expenses of attendees.
- Did the Women's Division have "full knowledge of the contents" in advance? No.
- Was the event the theological training for the quadrennium? No.
Why did the Women's Division sponsor attendance? In line with the ecumenical stance of the denomination, the Women's Division sponsors attendance at many ecumenical events. Our church, as indicated above, has promoted the issues relevant to Decade. The 1988 General Conference passed a resolution supporting the Decade.
- How many persons attended at Women's Division expense? Thirty-six directors (there are 65) chose to attend this conference. Nine staff members attended. There were 11 United Methodist Women conference vice presidents who attended because of their responsibilities for ecumenical and women's concerns.
In response to a request from the Minnesota Conference United Methodist Women, $2,500 was granted for Minnesota scholarships. The remainder of the nearly 400 United Methodists paid their own expenses.
. What does the Women's Division think of the theology articulated by speakers at this conference? The Women's Division subscribes to the theological concepts of The United Methodist Church as outlined in the Discipline. We are placed within the tradition and practice of The United Methodist Church and operate within that framework. We believe in freedom of religion and the rights of individuals to articulate differing beliefs.
- Did the United Methodist Church or the Women's Division "officially" participate? The Women's Division and the United Methodist Church have supported the Decade but neither were official sponsors or funders of this regional conference.
- What was the reaction of those who attended? The reactions varied. Some thought it was challenging, while not agreeing with all aspects. Some were disturbed by some of the ideas advanced. All are mature Christians rooted in the Wesleyan tradition, and are acquainted with the doctrines and positions of the United Methodist Church. They understood that they were attending an ecumenical event where a variety of opinions would be expressed.
Joyce D. Sohl is deputy general secretary of the Women’s Division of the United Methodist Board of Global Ministries
We have read the official response from the Women's Division concerning the "Re-Imagining" Conference. Unfortunately, it provides no satisfactory explanations about United Methodist participation in an event so far removed from Christian teaching and tradition. We are troubled, as well, by the absence of any expression of regret or even second thoughts about participation in an event which made a mockery of Christian doctrine and morality.
In fact, we find the Women's Division official response to be evasive, misleading, and ultimately unresponsive to the theological crisis now facing the UM Church.
What we are asking the leadership of the Women's Division to do is simple-to repudiate the false gospel promoted at the "Re-Imagining" Conference and to apologize to United Methodist Women for this misuse of their tithes and offerings. This, they have thus far refused to do.
The Women's Division's response refuses to address the numerous offensive, heretical, and derisive attacks upon historic Christianity. In noting that the staff and directors who attended were "all mature women able to make discriminating theological judgments," the statement neatly avoids any comment about the conference's repeated denials of historic Christian doctrine. The comment that "The Women's Division is committed to ecumenical dialogue and freedom to discuss a wide range of theological ideas" explains nothing. To say such offensive presentations were acceptable because this was "ecumenical dialogue" is a spurious attempt at justification and only gives "ecumenical dialogue" a bad name. The character of "Re-Imagining" was not that of dialogue, but rather of indoctrination in a feminist/womanist/lesbian agenda.
A few points need to be further addressed.
- In justifying the presence of staff and directors, the statement notes that those who attended were "aware that presence at an ecumenical event does not indicate approval of everything that happens. Good News and RENEW had their own representatives present." That statement implies that the Good News and RENEW representative attended simply to participate. We believed that the content of the "Re-Imagining" event might be highly controversial and thus deserving of careful coverage. Therefore, Dottie Chase attended as a press representative of Good News and RENEW. However, Mrs. Chase and several other mainline press representatives (Presbyterian, Lutheran, etc.) indicated they would have left in protest after the first two hours had they not been there as press observers.
- The official response also cites Good News' December 15 letter to the members of the Council of Bishops, which states that the event was "supported officially" by the Women's Division. And most certainly it was. The Women's Division took official action at its March 1993 meeting to be involved. At that spring meeting, the Women's Division's Section of Mission and Membership Development put forward a report which "rescinded the decision to have the staff and director theology workshop on May 14, 1993," and "approved that in place of a Women's Division sponsored theology workshop, directors and staff attend (as schedules allow) the Re-Imagining conference on the Ecumenical Decade/ Churches in Solidarity with Women in Minneapolis, MN November 4-7, 1.993." (This is found on page 3 of the section's "Report and Recommendations.") This action indicates that the Women's Division did "officially support" the "Re-Imagining" event.
- The statement also cites Good News' letter to the bishops which, it says, suggests that the Women's Division had "full knowledge of what the contents would be." For the record, the letter stated "One must wonder whether their [the Women's Division] participation was done with full knowledge of what the content would be." Since the Women's Division selected "Re-Imagining" as its major theological training event for the quadrennium, it is difficult to believe this was done unknowingly. When the Women's Division took the action at its spring meeting to participate in "Re- Imagining," a part of the rationale for doing so included the statement that "The 'Re-Imagining' workshop has drawn an excellent list of women theologians." The list of presenters had been published and must have been recognized by enough Women's Division staff for them to feel comfortable "rescinding" their own training event and making "Re- Imagining" their officially endorsed theological training event.
- The Women's Division statement denies that the "Re-Imagining" Conference was the theological training event for the quadrennium. Yet according to Exhibit 11 from the spring meeting of the Women's Division, entitled "Women's Division Staff and Director Retreat, 1994," the Women's Division "quadrennial pattern of retreats and theology workshops for staff and directors is: Year 1: Theology Workshop; Year 2: Spoken Retreat; Year 3: Silent Retreat; and Year 4: Individual Retreat." This document indicates "Re-Imagining" was the theological training event of the quadrennium for the Women's Division, an event set for Year I of the quadrennium, or 1993.
- While so many across the church are responding with shock and disgust
at reports about the "Re-Imagining" Conference, the Women's Division
appears unconcemed and unresponsive to the theological crisis reflected
in the presentations at the Minnesota gathering. The citing of General Conference
action urging participation in the "Ecumenical Decade" as well
as encouragement from the Council of bishops is a weak attempt to transfer
elsewhere the responsibility the Women's Division should accept for its
participation. Is this really the kind of event that encourages spiritual
or theological growth?
- The sad truth is that the Women's Division encouraged-and funded-participation
in an event which applauded heresy and celebrated blasphemy. The Women's
Division has acknowledged financial support of thirty-six directors (of
65 total), nine staff members, and eleven UMW conference vice presidents
who attended. The Women's Division also gave $2,500 in response to a request
from the Minnesota Conference United Methodist Women for scholarships. Page
66 of the program book was entitled "Thanks to Our Funders." Listed
among the funding organizations on that page was the Women's Division of
the United Methodist Church.
- The Women's Division response states that "presence at an ecumenical event does not indicate approval of everything that happens" and restates the Women's Division commitment to ecumenical dialogue and freedom to discuss a wide range of theological ideas among Christians of different backgrounds. These are noble but irrelevant points. The question is: will the Women's Division repudiate the unacceptable moral and theological substance of this conference?
We are left wondering why none of the United Methodist Women who attended "Re-Imagining," identified by the statement as "mature women able to make discriminating theological judgments" have not spoken out to denounce the heresy of Sophia and the rejection of so much of our Wesleyan theological heritage.
If the Women's Division sees the feminist/womanist/lesbian emphasis as the cutting edge for tomorrow's United Methodist Women, that is clearly unacceptable for the majority of UM women in our local churches. We ask the question once again about the matter of accountability. If the Women's Division is a part of the United Methodist Church, which it undoubtedly is, then the Council of Bishops must have the same responsibility of theological oversight of the women's unit as it does the entire UM Church, according to Par. 514.2 of the Book of Discipline. The UM Church awaits and desperately needs some expression of episcopal oversight concerning the "Re-Imagining" Conference.