Follow Christ’s example by supporting equal treatment and respect of all God’s people

By M. Garlinda Burton

As it is in the news game, the story of 14-year-old Malala Yousafzai, who defied a fundamentalist theocratic regime to champion education for girls (and was shot by these followers of God), is no longer in the headlines.

But her story should resonate with every woman of faith (and men who love women) who have ever been told that being the best person you are called to be is against God’s law.

The maligning and fear of empowered women are not limited to Pakistan. Just in this year women in the United States have been chastised by lawmakers for even saying the word “vagina,” which is the channel by which all of us are born on earth. Even more disturbing, some elected officials engaged in public debate about whether one expression of sexual violence against women is more palatable and worthy of criminalization that others. (Remember the “forcible rape” debacle?) Ask any woman who has been there and she will tell you, “Any rape is horrible.”

Among Christians in my country, women are being told at this moment that leaving an abusive marriage is wrong, that the Bible extols “modesty” and “obedience” over all other so-called feminine traits, and that we are not smart enough or worthy enough to be good stewards of our bodies–including our reproductive health.But God’s Word incarnate in the Living Christ is, for ALL women everywhere, the same as it is for all God’s people, period: grace, forgiveness, liberation, responsibility for the least of these, social justice, mercy, free will, choices. There is nothing in Jesus’s teaching about one sex or gender controlling another, about one race or clan being wiser than another, and certainly nothing that says that violence against women is the way to witness to one’s faith.I am calling on United Methodists to start in our own churches by supporting the full and equal treatment of and respect for women in every aspect of our Christian lives. That no congregation be allowed to say “no” to a woman pastor; that no United Methodist use violent actions or rhetoric against a woman who is having to make a tragic decision about whether or not to have an abortion; that no women has to hear a spiritual adviser blame her for being a victim of sexual or domestic violence.

I serve a living God who loves me as a daughter, who challenges me when I falter, and who upholds me in all things. I am strengthened in my faith by strong pastoral leaders and teachers who help me grow in my understanding and my relationship with God in Christ. What does NOT help any women grow in faith is to be bullied, threatened, chastised, maligned, targeted for hate and derision by her own faith community. Like Malala, we will not listen to the noise of those who would defile our faith with false teachings. Rather, we will continue to rise and walk to our destiny on the wings of the God in whose image we are also created.

Making GCSRW more accessible to all General Secretary reflects on General Conference struggle with Commission

General Conference

Making GCSRW more accessible to all General Secretary reflects on General Conference struggle with Commission

By M. Garlinda Burton

Even though I’m glad General Conference turned out like it did, I want The United Methodist Church to know that at least one agency exec has heard your frustration with the general church machine. This is what I heard from delegates, at least with regard to the GENERAL COMMISSION ON THE STATUS AND ROLE OF WOMEN (GCSRW):

• Women—and men—in local congregations feel disconnected from our work.

• Our mandate to address sexism and assure women’s full and equal participation is often not viewed by some laity and clergy in congregations as part of Christian disciple making.

• Most United Methodists around the world are unfamiliar with GCSRW’s purpose and mandates.

• Our agency, best known for “monitoring” at meetings, is not engaging with the concerns of laity and clergy in congregations.

• Countering injustice is complicated work, and it must be done well in order to be effective.

Many General Conference delegates who spoke and voted in favor of dissolving GCSRW and the General Commission and Religion and Race, and replacing them with a Committee on Inclusiveness (the agency restructure was subsequently ruled unconstitutional and the agencies were restored), expressed extreme dissatisfaction with all churchwide agencies.

Individually and collectively, delegates spoke of inefficiency, duplication of services, perceived waste of funds, and a dearth of resources and services to undergird local churches in their vitality, growth and Holy Spirit-fired work in nurturing people in the faith and transforming the world.

It would be easy to dismiss these opinions, as many of them came from persons who are routinely anti-women, and who embrace racism, classism and xenophobia. But dismissing all criticisms would be a mistake, because we hear the same comments from GCSRW true-believers, those who pray for us and support our work.

GCSRW was established 40 years ago this year to challenge The United Methodist Church to help move the church toward full and equal participation of women in every aspect of the mission, ministry, administration, leadership and Christian teaching of our denomination. One of our first actions was to push for expanded rights for women in ordained and licensed ministry—including working to elect the first women bishops in 1980 and 1984.

A second priority of the early GCSRW leaders was to monitor church structures for inclusion of women. Using a “coding” process, the Commission encouraged annual conference and local-church women and men to track the number of women versus the number of men involved in leadership, from ushering to leading international church agencies.

That was then; this is now Monitoring for inclusion of women and advocacy for clergywomen are still essential components of GCSRW’s work. The 2012 General Conference removed the guarantee of pastoral appointments for clergy. GCSRW and the General Commission on Religion and Race will continue to review and evaluate the implementation of this policy change to ensure women, U.S. people of color and central conference persons are protected from discrimination.

Institutional sexism and other issues still persist in preventing women’s full participation, but the face of those discriminations and barriers have changed. In some ways, GCSRW’s method of addressing them have not kept pace. And GCSRW has, frankly, dropped the ball on some of the ever-emerging issues needs of churchwomen, including:

1. Helping congregations make discipleship and church involvement more accessible to young women.

2. Learning from United Methodist women from beyond the United States on how to support anti-sexism work and advocacy for laywomen and clergywomen leaders in their cultural contexts.

3. Challenging congregations, particularly in the United States, to be more welcoming of women on the margins (i.e., differently abled, poor, abuse survivors, lesbian/bisexual/transgendered women, single mothers with children, women with no previous church experience, newly divorced women).

4. Exploring the changing roles of women and men, in families, congregations, mission context, ordained ministry and the workplace.

5. Assisting laywomen and clergywomen how to work together as sister-disciples in congregations and annual conferences.

6. Bringing women into bridge-building conversations to surmount racism, xenophobia, classism, heterosexism and other barriers to true Christian sisterhood.

We can do better I’m not apologizing for who GCSRW has been. Our groundbreaking work has transformed The United Methodist Church—and beyond. Because of GCSRW, all U.S. annual conferences are required to have policies on prevention training and justice-making to counter the harm done by ministerial sexual misconduct.

Because of GCSRW, we have effective women bishops, superintendents, pastors, mission workers and laity leading the denomination in Africa, Europe and the United States.

Because of the faithfulness of our founding mothers and fathers, the number of women delegates to General Conference has increased by 30 percent during the past 40 years.

Because of the faithfulness of GCSRW, women ignored and wounded by other churches came to The United Methodist Church and found a spiritual home.

Because of GCSRW, men and women have learned to live together, share power and responsibility, and build better congregations, ministries of presence in their communities and relationships with Christ and one another.

And I strongly believe that a congregation that fails to confront sexism and racism cannot be “vital,” and true Christian discipleship requires us do justice, love kindness and walk humbly with  God.

But, some of the angst of General Conference seemed to me a call to do better as a single agency and as a participant in the work of our entire church. So I’m sharing some ideas I have to improve the work of GCSRW and to engage more women and men in the ministry of bringing wholeness and equity to and through The United Methodist Church. We will work harder to:

Bring together young women, women of color, poor women and central conference women—and go where they are—to discover the contemporary challenges women face as they seek to live out faith and calling.  Celebrate and assist men in doing their own work to address sexism, privilege and sexual violence. Sexism is not “women’s work,” and men who “get it” must be engaged as partners in countering discrimination and institutional bias.  Expand our work with laywomen and clergywomen on how to work effectively together. A dirty little secret in our denominations is that laywomen and clergywomen often compete with and undermine one another—some call it the “queen bee” syndrome. Part of our work in countering institutional sexism is to help women understand how we are often complicit in our own oppression. Coming together in faith, humility and openness can help women forge alliances to improve the total life of the church.  Nurture women who are new to church leadership. Engaging new women is key, particularly women who are often marginalized in church leadership (i.e., local pastors, young women, single moms, low-income women). Last quadrennium, GCSRW wanted to bring together 200-plus women from around the world for a “congress,” where we worshiped, shared in a mission project, learned church polity and history, and pledge to learn and mentor one another in small online groups. We did not have the money to do it. We’re going to try again this quadrennium.  Talk about hard issues as women. Sexuality and sexual orientation, faith and money, racism and classism, relationships, stress, divorce…these are hard things to talk about. But people of faith must provide space to discuss these issues if we are to help women apply their faith principles to “real life.”

These are just a few of my ideas. I would welcome yours. If you have an idea of how GCSRW can increase our visibility and relevance to women in congregations and draw a clearer connection between Christian discipleship and our mandates to battle sexism and sexual abuse in the church, please email us at gcsrw@gcsrw.org, or call in the United States, 312.346.4900.

Thanks to everyone who weighed in at General Conference and beyond.

–M. Garlinda Burton is general secretary of the General Commission on the Status and Role of Women.

A Time to Listen, A Time to Speak

By Elaine Moy

General Commission on the Status and Role of Women will be around for the next 4 years.  It was because of a judicial decision that the “Plan UMC” structure was unconstitutional, not because it was the will of the body, the 1,000 delegates in plenary.

The designers of “Plan UMC” said that the new structure was about accountability.  I also agree with accountability.  And I support gender and racial justice.  And there can be both at the same time, it isn’t one or the other.  When a group of people design a structure without including various parts of the denomination to the table, then there will be viewpoints missing.  That was why we want the table bigger to include the different voices.

By using Roberts Rules for conducting the plenary sessions, it was hard to determine what the hindering issues were for GCSRW and GCORR to be independent agencies.  Was it that these issues were not relevant for the delegates?  Was it because of money – which was the same amount with the structure change or not?

When looking at the demographics of US delegates who was in the plenary – it was easy to see what was missing from the US.  The delegates were mostly white, mostly older adults, mostly male and at least half had a household income of $100,000.  Do they represent the majority of UMC?  Can they vote to help the majority of the UMC or to move the UMC into a different place?

There were racism, sexism and classism running throughout the sessions.  Unfortunately there wasn’t time to unpack some of the episodes so all people can see how one situation can be interpreted many different ways.  And it is unfortunate that we as a global church only meet once every four years because normally in our daily lives, most people do not live in such a diverse community of people.  Therefore we do not know or understand each other lives and experiences.

Some delegates spoke about how they were saddened or upset by how the delegates were voting on important issues.  But some were silent, not wanting to speak out.  For a democratic process to work, all who can vote have a duty to speak up.  It isn’t about relying on others to speak for them, but for each person to voice their own opinion.

Some people felt that most of the votes were against women, people of color in the US, young people, homosexuals – people on the margins.  People who are not normally part of the “power” within the church.  The history of these persons are important because we didn’t all start at the same place – none of these groups had power, they all had to fight to get whatever power they currently have.  To think we are all equal and can be treated without any thought to where each group came from is to forget the realities in life for many people.  The only group of people that didn’t have to fight for their power was white men.

There was an Asian American young woman who was actively participating in her group.  After the vote was taken, an older white man told her that she was not a team player; she needed to go along with the group.  So do we want her to make the “year book picture” more colorful or did we want her because of her experiences and perspectives?  Would this encounter hinder her participation with future UMC related activities?

It was clear that the UMC wants to bring in more young people as clergy and in membership.  Do we think we will have more people within our churches by not listening to their experiences and their desires?  Do we believe people will join our churches to follow those before them without having any voice of their own?  We have been losing membership for the last 40 years, when the older adults were in leadership.  If we are to bring in more people, different people, we may need to start listening to them.

The General Commission on the Status and Role of Women has been and will continue to listen to women – young women, older women, white women, women of color in the US, women in Africa, Philippines, Asian, poor women, wealthy women, lay women, clergy women, working women, etc.  And help the UMC to be more inclusive of all women in the life of the church.

Defend Equity and Full Participation of Women and People of Color

By Garlinda Burton

Defend equity and full participation
of women and people of color
Save the full ministries of GCSRW and GCORR
Thurs., May 3, 2012—General Conference, Tampa

Take these actions (IN ORDER)

1. First, vote NO to Petitions 20374 and 20375 on page 347 in the (red volume) Advanced Daily Christian Advocate.  >>>(Rationale: If you vote no, the Plan UMC cannot be implemented and the current church structure says as it is.)
2. Second, vote for reconsideration of the action of General Conference adopting Plan UMC as our official structure, and make this amendment: Amend pages 2587-2588 of the May 3 DCA, by deleting current Par. 908 and 909 and replacing with:

WORDING OF NEW ¶908 There shall be a churchwide General Board of Ethics, Advocacy, and Reconciliation of The United Methodist Church, which shall be directly accountable to, report to, and be evaluated by the General Conference. The general secretary of the Office shall be a member of the Center on Strategy and Oversight.

This agency shall be oversee development of churchwide training, policies and procedures in the prevention, intervention, advocacy, justice-making and healing related to sexual misconduct, sexual and racial-ethnic and tribal harassment and discrimination. Further, this office shall monitor, evaluate, report on and make recommendations to the General Conference and the General Council on Strategy and Oversight and to the church at large on the denomination’s progress on full engagement, ministries with, and inclusion of women, people of color, tribal and ethnic minorities around the world and full and equal partners in the work of the United Methodist Church.

NEW ¶909—There shall be a Division of Religion and Race

NEW ¶91O (HERE INSERT ¶2002 purpose

NEW  ¶911 (HERE INSERT ¶2008  responsibilities

NEW ¶912—There shall be a Division on the Status and Role of Women

NEW ¶913 (HERE INSERT ¶2102 purpose

NEW ¶914 (HERE INSERT ¶2103 Responsibility

 

NEW ¶915—The policies, plans, and administration of the work of the agency shall be determined by its membership, which shall be composed of 25 people; membership shall include at least 50 percent women, at least 25 percent Central Conference members, two bishops (one from Central Conferences and one woman) and at least 25 percent young adults. Additional members shall be elected by the board, with a goal of including representatives from each U.S. racial-ethnic groups

 

NEW ¶916—Insert ¶2107 (funding)

NEW ¶917 – Insert ¶2108 (staff)

(Rationale: a) GCORR and GCSRW do more than monitor. We don’t want to lose their mandates—including advocacy, training, and advice regarding institutional bias and ministerial misconduct.  b) Also, to be effective, new entity needs full funding, staff, and equal status with agencies. This addition ensures that the new agency will have a general secretary and budget. C) “Committee” is lower than a board or council, so that it makes it more difficult to intervene in justice matters, particularly if the injustice happens at the board or council level.  D)FYI, the combined proposed budgets of GCORR and GCSRW equals $14,399,000, which is approximately 2.3 percent of the total General Church.

3. As a last resort, move that all current Disciplinary mandates of GCORR and GCSRW be retained in the new Committee on Inclusiveness. Do this by making a motion to:

Amend pages 2587 and 2588 of the DCA, new Par. 908 and 909, to include the full mandates of GCORR and GCSRW, including advocacy, monitoring, training, as listed in the 2008 Book of Discipline.

(Rationale: a) GCORR and GCSRW do more than monitor. We don’t want to lose their mandates—including advocacy, training, and advice regarding institutional bias and ministerial misconduct.  b) Also, to be effective, new entity needs full funding, staff, and equal status with agencies. This addition ensures that the new agency will have a general secretary and budget. c) “Committee” is lower than a board or council, so that it makes it more difficult to intervene in justice matters, particularly if the injustice happens at the board or council level.  d) FYI, the combined proposed budgets of GCORR and GCSRW equals $14,399,000, which is approximately 2.3 percent of the total General Church.

“I’m Not a Y’all; I’m a We”

By Garlinda Burton

In a conversation about possible restructure with a white, male U.S. delegate, I raised a concern about the fact that the agencies concerned with advocacy for inclusion of women and people of color (GCSRW and GCORR) were the only ones being recommended for merger and dimunition.

When I suggested the injustice of this issue, and the fact that the women’s advocacy agency budget is less than $1 million a year (only 1 percent of the World Service Fund that supports all agencies), my brother in Christ pointed at me and said passionately, “Y’all (plural for “you” in the U.S. South) need to put your interests aside and do what is best for the church!”

I was stunned for just a second, but I rallied. I replied, “I’m not a y’all; I’m a we.”

My response took him by surprise, so I explained, “You just referred to me as ‘y’all,’ like I’m outside the church. I’m reminding you that we—I drew a circle in the air to include him and me—“we all need to do what’s best for the church.”

In that exchange, I was reminded that, though I am a fifth-generation United Methodist, African-American women and leader in my congregation and denomination, I’m still viewed by the majority of my church—particularly in the Unites States—as “the other.” In the eyes of a United Methodist layman who shares my faith, I was reduced to a “y’all.”

The clear implication was (and is) that sisters and brothers from Central Conferences, U.S. people of color, members of the GLBTIQQ community, and women who assert equity and justice too vehemently are assumed to be self-serving and meddling outsiders.

But the God who created us, the Christ who redeems us, and the Spirit who guides us–this Holy Trinity—declares in one voice that all shall become one. Not that we all agree, not that we are all the same, and not that we all don’t have great gifts AND significant foibles.

Until and unless we embrace justice, equity and full participation of all, and until those in the majority or dominant culture, class, race-ethnicity, gender, economic status and language realize that “we” includes all people, Christians will continue to be viewed with suspicion, derision and mistrust. Unless our walk about inclusiveness begins to match our pious talk, the United Methodist Church will dissolve into an irrelevant, dead sect, as founder John Wesley warned us against.

So far, the General Conference has:
a) added another layer of bureaucracy to our general agency structure, which includes little attention to ensuring a place, particularly for young people and women of color;
b) eliminated guaranteed appointments for elders without instituting protections against gender/racial/age and other discrimination in the appointment process; and
c) collapsed the General Commission on the Status and Role of Women and the General Commission on Religion and Race into a single entity with no executive and less power to challenge and address bias.

People from beyond the United States, women, young people, and U.S. people of color were poorly represented among the major architects of proposals to restructure church agencies and chart the course for disciple-making and mission in the name of our God. White U.S. men, who are a minority in the world, are still clearly in charge.

Y’all, we need to speak up, lest our church become an exclusive, closed country club.

Intersection: Can We Come Out to Each Other?

Intersection: Can We Come Out to Each Other?
A Joint Witness of the General Commission on the Status and Role of Women (GCOSROW) and the General Commission on Religion and Race (GCORR)

This article may make some uncomfortable, but please read on.

“Coming out” names the experience that gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgendered, intersexed, queer, and questioning persons engage when they begin the process of affirming their identity.  Coming out requires understanding and affirming one’s own gender and sexual identity.  It is a process of being honest with one’s self and with others.

At the intersection of General Conference 2012, we find ourselves faced with a related issue: Can we be courageous enough to be honest with ourselves and each other?  Can we make this space safe for mutual “coming out”?

General Conference 2012 is recommending legislation that will impact the entire body of Christ called the United Methodist Church for the next forty years.  Some of our judgments and perspectives have affirmed our unity in Christ, while other continue to separate the body.  One tweet states it this way: “Church narrowly approves grace for all!” Another says “Humans may not like Grace for all.  Good thing God does.”

We are at a potential impasse.  It is like two vehicles that come down a narrow road toward one another with each vehicle insisting that they have the right of way.  The dynamics of oppression become more likely when one vehicle is larger than the other, whether it is the vehicle of economics or at the table of decision making.  The larger vehicle seeks to move the smaller out of the way.  There is no grace, there is no making room, there is no forward movement.  Both vehicles are stuck.   What do we do at the impasse?

Can we come out to each other?  Can we be honest and name our fears?

These are some of the fears that have been expressed during general conference:

We are afraid that the work of ministries like the General Commission on Religion and Race and the General Commission on the Status and Role of Women are going to be diminished or lost.  We are afraid of the growing numbers of United Methodists outside of the United States, and what it will mean for the future of our denomination.  We are afraid that young people will replace us.  We are afraid of losing control of the resources of the denomination.  We are afraid of the ordination and full inclusion of gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgendered, intersexed, queer, and questioning persons.  We are afraid of losing our own individual places of influence and control.  We are afraid of clergy taking advantage of the guaranteed appointment system.  We are afraid of episcopal leaders having too much influence.  We are afraid of not making vital choices while in a state of transition, decline in the United States and of rapid growth in the southern hemisphere.  We are afraid that non-guaranteed appointments will cast out prophetic voices under the guise of “effectiveness.”  We are afraid that there will no longer be freedom of the pulpit.  We are afraid that we will remain in decline in the United States if we don’t deal with clergy ineffectiveness.  Laity are afraid they will receive ineffective pastors or that they may receive a pastor that is not like them.  We are afraid that women and people of color may be in control of the leadership, polity and resources of the denomination.

We are afraid that “liberals” will be in charge.  We are afraid that “conservatives” will be in charge.  We are afraid that we will not have enough money to meet our congregational obligations to pastor’s salaries, pastoral benefits, apportionments.  We are afraid of the uncertainty of relating to each other covenantally.  We are afraid that the hierarchy of the church will adversely impact the ministries and prophetic voices of pastors.  We are afraid that our specific concerns will not be heard or will be lost.   We are afraid that we will not be able to control how our financial resources contributed to the denomination will be used.  We are afraid that there will be discriminatory action against female and racial ethnic pastors.  We are afraid that people of color that will continue to be denied access and equity at the table of decision-making.

These are just a few of the many fears that are a part of the intersectionality of each of us, and a part of the intersection of GC2012.

We are afraid of each other.

The way we are engaging one another, out of fear, points to our inability to be honest with ourselves about our vulnerabilities and to be vulnerable with each other.

Observations and Challenges

Challenges continue with English-only on screens and in published documents.

During the Monday evening worship experience, all ministry goals, except two, presented during the worship were for the U.S. context.

Only males, except the legislative committee chair, spoke during the debate on the set aside bishop for the Council of Bishops.

There was a repeated challenge with delegates in back of the auditorium seeking to speak not being recognized.

No Asian American or Pacific Islander spoke during the morning plenary.

During the Tuesday morning plenary discussion, when a point of order was raised about an equal number of speeches for or against an amendment, the presiding bishop ignored the speaker.

Fears can be alleviated when we confront them honestly.  Why can’t we be honest with one another?  We are playing politics, strategizing, moving pieces around without talking about the real issues.

One white male participant said to an African American female participant, “Y’all need to do what’s best for the church.”

The recommendation of the UMC plan diminishes the necessity of the roles and voices of women and persons of color to have full equity and access within the church structure.

We continue to hear few women’s voices during plenary discussions.

Celebrations and Best Practices

We celebrate that a delegate from one of the European central conferences brought forward in behalf of his colleagues a request not to translate future DCAs into German so that there could be translation into Swahili.

Good to see the first female bishop presiding during a plenary at 2012 GC.

We celebrate an historic moment during Sunday evening’s plenary when Bishop Nhanala, the first African female bishop presided over a plenary session during General Conference.

We celebrate the election of an African female clergy woman (the first woman ordained in the Southern Congo Conference) Kabamba Kiboko as member of Judicial Council.

We celebrate the election of African American pastor Dennis Blackwell and Liberian lay delegate N. Oswald Tweh, Sr., as members of Judicial Council.

We celebrate that thirty-six percent of all delegates to GC2012 are new.

We celebrate the increased participation of Central Conference delegates’ participation in Tuesday morning’s plenary session.

We celebrate the number of young adults actively participating at the 2012 General Conference.

Becoming Community at the Intersection

As of this writing fear continues to limit the full participation of all of us.  Gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgendered, intersexed, queer, and questioning persons are not fully included in conversation.  They remain outside full participation in our decision-making.  They stand in integrity and in the truth of who they are.  While we continue to hide behind fears and insecurities.  James 4:1 ask us: “What is the source of conflict among you?  What is the source of your disputes?  Don’t they come from your cravings that are at war in your own lives?”

PLENARY SNAPSHOTS			GCORR/GCSRW Monitoring Report
	MON (morning) 4-30-12	MON (afternoon)    4-30-12	TUES  (morning)       5-1-12
Female delegates	38%	38%	38%
Female participation	28%	40%	30%
Male delegates	62%	62%	62%
Male participation	72%	60%	70%
Racial/Ethnic delegates	22%	22%	22%
Racial/Ethnic participation	22%	14%	12%
Central Conf delegates	41%	41%	41%
Central Conf participation	14%	19%	29%
First-time delegates (339) 36% of delegates

Who is Being Compromised?

By Tyler Schwaller

Coming into the 2012 General Conference, delegates had before themselves various plans to restructure the institutional church so as to most ”effectively” create and sustain “vital congregations.” (I use quotes because I begin to lose the sense that such words have any meaning as they become cliché. Nevertheless, the issue of restructuring to meet the needs of the 21st-century church is truly important work.)

The legislative committee charged with making a recommendation rejected every single plan (some in the last fifteen minutes before the enforced conclusion of committee work). They rejected compromise proposals. So this week, around 1,000 delegates will start at nearly the same place the smaller committee began.

If I seem to be lacking faith in the process, my sentiments are being read correctly. The fact of the matter is that now back-room deals have been made to come up with compromises that delegates might approve.

But who is at the table? And who is being compromised? I will wait to see the names associated with the proposal, but the answer as to who has been engaged in this process will probably not satisfy those who are committed to inclusion and justice.

The compromise proposal that was submitted yesterday afternoon so that delegates can read the petition today and vote tomorrow combines the General Commission on the Status and Role of Women and the General Commission on Religion and Race into a new “Committee on Inclusivity.”

But there are compelling, significant reasons not to compromise GCSRW and its work.

First of all, reducing GCSRW to a “committee” undercuts its ability actually to monitor the church effectively. A small office, lodged under a larger Center, cannot speak truth to power at the highest levels of the church and hold the churchwide structures accountable (especially not the Center overseeing it).

Secondly, the compromise proposal fails to deal adequately with the need for the church to enact comprehensive sexual ethics policies and practices in order to prevent and address the problem of sexual misconduct. GCSRW has been facilitating this work now for years and has become a trusted partner of bishops, district superintendents, local churches, and, importantly, victim-survivors. No other agency of the church is equipped to seek fair process for both victim-survivors and the accused since other entities are primarily invested in protecting the clergy or church assets. When people feel that they have been treated fairly, they are less likely to sue the church. And with a current budget of less than $1 million per year, if only one lawsuit is prevented, GCSRW has paid for itself. Reducing GCSRW will save the church little and could cost it significantly.

Third, GCSRW was formed 40 years ago because the UMC committed itself to the idea that gender justice is not just women’s work but the work of the whole church. Addressing gender discrimination and institutional sexism is not nearly complete, especially as the UMC grows in places of the world where women are not always permitted to participate as full and equal members. If we are to be a global church, we have a responsibility to continue and even expand efforts to empower women worldwide.

When considering this structural compromise, the UMC ought to be prepared to answer, “ Who is being compromised?” and then to respond out of a Gospel commitment to be in ministry with and for all, especially the most vulnerable.

Rest assured that the staff of GCSRW is working hard with delegates to maintain the Commission as a free-standing, independent monitoring and advocacy agency.

To give an update on GCSRW petitions: most of our proposed legislation (which can be found here) has been approved, including adding sexual ethics work to our mandates (which, of course, now depends on our essential functions being carried forward, whether as GCSRW or in a new form). Two major pieces of legislation are still pending:

–Adding “gender” to paragraph 4 of the Constitution, which regards the ”Inclusiveness of the Church” and specifies categories against which no organization of the church can discriminate. The committee that considered the original petition supported it for adoption by a vote of 59-3.

–Defining pornography in the Social Principles. Church and Society and GCSRW submitted nearly identical petitions with the difference being that C&S offered a definition of pornography so capacious that it could not be used effectively to address problems of pornography use as sexual misconduct. GCSRW, which has done significant work around pornography as part of its sexual ethics work, has offered a petition that defines what is harmful and so can be used in practice to address actual harm. The committee considering the petitions originally accepted the GCSRW definition but then reconsidered it (committee work can be unwieldy and wild!), so GCSRW is preparing delegates to reinstate the language proposed by the Commission.