Untitled Document

As with every General Conference since the 1960s, the 2004 proceedings included petitions from around the world addressing the issues of abortion and capital punishment. Both liberal and conservative members of the denomination attempted to mold the current Resolutions and Discipline to fit their various agendas.

Abortion rights activists attempted to protect the current pro-choice statement, while pro-life activists attempted to change the permissiveness of the existing statement. Regarding the issue of capital punishment, most petitions attempted to strengthen the denomination's opposition to the practice.

Herein lies the problem we have as United Methodists. We do not have, what Roman Catholic Cardinal Joseph Bernardin called, a "Consistent Ethic of Life." In 1984, Bernardin sought to explain the interrelatedness of life issues through the overarching principle that God is the creator of all life. His analogy was that of a tapestry in which abortion, protection of civilians in times of war, the cessation of the death penalty, the protection of the elderly, and the protection of the handicapped were all part of the same cause.

As United Methodists, we are not consistent in the principles undergirding our social activism. For example, in our Book of Discipline's ironically titled section, "The Nurturing Community," one finds the following:

"The beginning of life and the ending of life are the God-given boundaries of human existence. While individuals have always had some degree of control over when they would die, they now have the awesome power to determine when, and even whether, new individuals will be born. Our belief in the sanctity of unborn human life makes us reluctant to approve abortion. But we are equally bound to respect the sacredness of the life and well-being of the mother, for whom devastating damage may result from an unacceptable pregnancy" (Para. 161.J; emphasis mine).

Here we find two incompatible statements. While professing "belief" that God is the giver of life, we tacitly encourage the exercise of a procedure that ends the work God has done. This is incomprehensible considering our "profession of faith" in the first line that God is the giver of life. This is a position repeated in Resolution #90 ("New Developments in Genetic Science"). There, we state that "Creation has its origin, existence, value, and destiny in God," and that it "has been declared 'good' by the Creator." Does this inform our decisions?

No, for in another resolution left unchanged by General Conference 2004, we shamelessly declare some children "unacceptable." This is a chilling statement reminiscent of such famous eugenics advocates as Margaret Sanger (founder of Planned Parenthood) and Dr. Joseph Mengele (the famous "angel of death" in Auschwitz).

Consider the deeply disturbing Resolution #22, unaltered by this year's General Conference. "As developing technologies have moved.reproduction more.closely to the realm of responsible choice, the decision whether or not to give birth to children must include acceptance of the responsibility to provide for their mental, physical, and spiritual growth, as well as consideration of the possible effect on quality of life for family and society."

One could translate this passage as follows: If your baby will not be perfect, if it will affect your financial goals for yourself and spouse, and if it will be too much of a responsibility, then your best decision is to remove this impending "burden" for the sake of yourself and society.

This ill-conceived advice reveals another inconsistency with United Methodism's position on issues of life. On one hand, Para. 162.G of the Discipline states that United Methodists "recognize and affirm the full humanity.of all individuals with disabilities (and).their rightful place in both the church and society." On the other hand, we are encouraging parents to spare themselves the struggle of raising children who might have a negative effect on a family's quality of life because of "mental" or "physical" challenges.

We have begun to measure the value of human life by a sliding scale of temporal standards for happiness and "social good." It seems that we have convinced ourselves with all of our modern technology and the ability to determine ahead of time if a child is worth bearing or not. It seems that we think it okay to one day have a world where only "beauty queens, Mensa I.Q.'s, and athletes will remain," as Muggeridge observed. Gone, however, as he put it, "in this world without tears, will be the Christian vision of a mankind whose loving Father is God and the symbolism of a stricken body, nailed to a cross" as a symbol of hope.

Consider our Resolution statement on population control (#146), where we describe a world with too many "unacceptable" people:

"Hunger and poverty, injustice and violence in the world, cannot simplistically be blamed on population growth, yet the rapidly swelling numbers of humankind are making it increasingly difficult to solve the other interconnected problems. There is much we do not yet know about the relationship between population size and the sustaining environment, but clearly, we do know there can be too many people..The church supports population programs as needed to move toward its goal of a just and humane world order."

Notice the difference, though, when we describe in the same Resolution #146 the ideal world in which a proper number of people without disabilities are in charge:

"We welcome the growing understanding of what just and desirable means for lowering fertility rates may encompass, and we affirm that the use of such means must take into consideration the critical importance and interrelated nature of these aspects: better education and the opportunity for people to participate in decisions that shape their lives; the provision of basic economic security, including old-age security; upgrading the status of women; improved maternal and child health care; and finally, a strong birth-control program."

What a difference genetic selection makes! What are you to do if you find out that your baby might have a birth defect? Well, according to Resolution #22, a "mature Christian" woman will recognize the "wisdom" of abortion when confronted with an "unacceptable" pregnancy. Where is hope? Where is faith in God's blessings of strength and courage?

Let us recognize that no family would willingly choose to have a handicapped or deformed child. Still, few after birth would eliminate the child's presence from their lives simply because it is not pristine. Furthermore, they would probably tell you that they would not want to deprive either themselves or their children the basics of human experience that they encounter each day: pleasure, sadness, love, and hope.

Still, we do not hesitate to make such perverse recommendations. Why is this? It appears that our primary measure for a quality life is the ever-tenuous standard of economic and physical expediency. What is best right now? In basing our positions on such a fleeting standard, we not only abandon historic church tradition, but also the teachings of our founder, John Wesley, who, when reflecting on the exercise of power, asked, "Where is the justice of inflicting.evils on those that have done us no wrong? Of depriving those that never injured us in word or deed.?"

In each of Wesley's comments on abortion, he considered it an act of murder to be avoided at all cost. Can the same be said of his views on capital punishment? Unfortunately, no, as it appears that he never made a statement on either side of the issue.

In our current Discipline however, in paragraph 164.A, we make one of our few unambiguous stands. We declare, "The mistreatment or torture of persons by governments for any purpose violates Christian teaching and must be condemned and/or opposed by Christians and churches..For the same reason, we oppose capital punishment and urge its elimination from all criminal codes."

The significance of this is that it is consistent with a belief that human life should begin and end with God. Our position is similar to that of the Catholic Church's, which is that the government should pursue methods other than execution for punishing violent and dangerous criminals.

In recent years, anti-death penalty activists have had their cause bolstered by the rising tide of DNA evidence freeing death row inmates wrongly convicted of crimes they did not commit. Dozens have been freed over the past five years, proving that many were probably innocent when executed.

The problem is, if innocence is our standard for the preservation of life, how can we encourage abortion? Furthermore, it seems that if we are interested in saving the greatest number of lives, then we are investing ourselves wrongly in the issues. After all, as of April 2004, 44 million abortions have been performed in the United States since 1973, whereas 60,000 executions have been carried out since 1968. The numbers seem to indicate that our priorities are misplaced.

To speak with authority, we must be consistent in our support of all life, whether unborn or elderly, whether handicapped or guilty of crime. If we are to engage society with any sense of moral authority as a denomination, we must begin to rethink over the next four years our positions on all issues relating the value of human life, so that all begin with the same foundation: that "Creation has its origin, existence, value, and destiny in God."

This is the position eloquently advocated by Pope John Paul II in his 1995 encyclical "The Gospel of Life." He wrote "a new cultural climate is developing.which gives crimes against life a new and-if possible-even more sinister character." What were these crimes?

"Any type of murder, genocide, abortion, euthanasia, or willful self-destruction, violates the integrity of the human person.(including) subhuman living conditions, arbitrary imprisonment, deportation, slavery, prostitution, the selling of women and children; as well as disgraceful working conditions, where people are treated as mere instruments of gain rather than as free and responsible persons; all these things and others like them are infamies indeed. They poison human society, and.harm.those who practice them. Moreover, they are a supreme dishonor to the Creator."

Later, John Paul II would argue that capital punishment was a form of murder, saying that it was not necessary so long as "bloodless means are sufficient to defend human lives against an aggressor." He then called on public authorities to seek out "bloodless" methods of protecting the public, as they "correspond to the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person."

For most of us, especially in a post 9/11 world, there is a big difference between defending the right to life of a baby in the womb and the life of a person convicted of murder or terrorism. Within the worldview of "The Gospel of Life," however, there is no difference, as capital punishment is not necessary for the defense of a nation or the innocent. Incarceration and isolation for life are enough.

While our statement condemning capital punishment places us within the confines of the Pope's "culture of life," our abortion rights stand prevents us from remaining there. For while Resolution #231 on Capital Punishment states that we believe "no.human life can be taken humanely by the state," we do not state that it is inhumane to abort babies in the womb.

John Paul's delineation of the boundaries of "life" versus "death" provides us a starting point with which to re-evaluate our social principles as a denomination. If we do not find consistency in our positions, we have no credibility in either the "culture of life" or the "culture of death."

Cardinal Bernardin eloquently argued for a consistent ethic of life. He wrote that: "The case for a consistent ethic of life-one which stands for the protection of the right to life and the promotion of the rights which enhance life from womb to tomb-manifests the positive potential of the Catholic moral and social tradition. It is both a complex and a demanding tradition; it joins the humanity of the unborn infant and the humanity of the hungry; it calls for positive legal action to prevent the killing of the unborn or the aged and positive societal action to provide shelter for the homeless and education for the illiterate. The potential of the moral and social vision is appreciated in a new way when the systemic vision of Catholic ethics is seen as the background for the specific positions we take on a range of issues."

His point is that we begin enhancing a person's quality of life when we seek to protect his or her right to life. Furthermore, he argued that it is not enough to protect the baby while it is in the womb. We must do more. We must care for it when it has emerged into the world in whatever condition nature has determined. A.J. Dyck put it best when he wrote, "The moral question for us is not whether the suffering and dying are persons, but whether we are the kind of persons who will care for them without doubting their worth."

Our challenge is to seek credibility, not through politically advantageous statements, but through a relevant, consistent stand for the value of God's work in creation, and through the protection of human life in all its forms. To do this, we must reevaluate our positions on a variety of issues, including healthcare, family, population, criminal justice, and medicine. The consequences may be that we change many of our current positions grounded on nothing more than political expediency, yet the result will once again be a return to relevance and integrity. Can we repair the tapestry of our social principles, and stand firmly on the belief that God is the "author of all life?" This is the question that lies before us.

Peter R. McGuire is currently serving the Salem-Epworth United Methodist Churches in Mount Airy, NC and Cana, VA. He was the assistant editor for the Frederick Herzog reader, entitled "Theology from the Belly of the Whale" and the author of "The Fruit of the Vine, a History of Methodism in the Piedmont."

Click here to send your response plus the title of this article to us at Good News.

United Methodism's inconsistency on issues of life By Peter R. McGuire

United Methodism's inconsistency on issues of life
By Peter R. McGuire