ALCOHOL, ABORTION
and Wesleyans
Wesleyans can’t drink alcohol—not even a bit. We promise not to drink in our “Membership
Commitments.” When we became a “Covenant
member” of our denomination we agreed to “follow carefully and
conscientiously” the membership commitments and were warned that “Disregard
of the principles embraced in [them] “subjects a member to Church discipline”
which means you can get kicked out of The Wesleyan Church for drinking alcohol.
But Wesleyans can’t kick you out for getting an
abortion, or even for performing one.
In fact, no Wesleyan has ever promised to be against abortion when they joined
our denomination. Abortion is not
mentioned in our Articles of religion or our Membership Commitments. We promise to not join secret
societies and lodges, and we promise not to gamble, smoke
or get divorced for extra-Biblical reasons but we do not promise anything about
abortions.
That is not to say Wesleyans are not anti-abortion. Most Wesleyans (including myself) think abortion is
wrong. However, Wesleyans never promised to have this opinion when we joined
our church. We were not required to be against abortion even though most all of
us are. However, the Wesleyan Discipline is not silent completely on
abortion. We have one paragraph in our “Special Directions” addressing abortion.
The Special Directions are the section of our Discipline where we make “official
admonitions to the members, ministers and officials of The
So how come Wesleyans promise not to buy lottery tickets, or
join a secret society or take a drink of spiked punch at the office Christmas
party yet we do not promise anything about getting or performing abortions? It has its history that may be
instructive to the current debate about alcohol.
A little history: Wesleyans had no statement whatsoever about
abortion before 1984.
Back in those days, the anti-abortion movement was new (at that time it was not
pro-life but anti-abortion). The Catholics were the first but they didn’t
convince many Wesleyans since we had already come to disagree with them on
their rejection of birth control. Then evangelicals began to rise up and make noise
about abortion. I remember these early evangelical pioneers, especially Melody
Green (wife
of CCM singer Keith Green who had
been tragically killed in a plane crash). She spoke out early. Wesleyans didn’t respond. I remember
when I published a very
anti-abortion article in a denominational youth magazine I was
quietly chided by a denominational official for “getting involved in social
issues.” Not that there were many Wesleyans getting abortions or performing
them—we didn’t even think about these things… and when we did, we seldom spoke
about them. Some even argued at coffee break that abortion was “a private
family matter and no business of government or churches.
Our sleepiness on abortion changed fast. The anti-abortion movement convinced
virtually all Wesleyans that abortion was killing, and the life of the fetus
was sacred. Once the vast majority of Wesleyans were
convinced (by the larger social movement) the denomination’s
resolution-writers got out their pencils. A strong anti-abortion statement was
crafted for the Special Directions section of our Discipline and it came
to the General Board of Administration to be approved for sending on to the
1984 General Conference. You might imagine that this was a no-brainer
discussion. It wasn’t. I recall the debate as two GBA
members vociferously opposed such a strong stance. (I’ll tell my two sons
their names for history’s sake, but it’s none of your business). They were defeated and the resolution
moved forward toward General Conference.
At General Conference ’84 the new
special direction came to the floor. The anti-abortion folk on the GBA
(most everyone by then) worried that it might not pass at General Conference.
After all, there were a number of churches by then who were proud of being
tolerant and “grace based” and “non-judgmental.” Even though the Special
Directions were not binding on members we still worried that this new “crack
down” would be received as being “too legalistic.” Back then (maybe still?) when a
controversial resolution came from the GBA, one or
two persons were often designated privately to defend the resolution. I was picked as the defender of the new stricter stance
against abortion. I sat next to Dr. Lee Haines at that general Conference and
he kept track of the resolutions marching toward the one I was supposed to
defend against the “liberals who might oppose it.” I knew how this was supposed to work. If someone stood to oppose it, I was
to be the next speaker defending it before a wave of opposition could get a head
of steam. When Dr. Haines saw the resolution coming he nudged me, “You’re
on.” I was sitting in a shirt and tie
with my coat draped casually on the seat behind me. (In those days everyone wore a suit at general Conference) I quietly reached around
and slipped into my coat and got ready for battle. Nothing.
Nobody said a word—not even the two GBA members who
had dragged their feet on the GBA. Nobody.
Hearing nothing, the chair called for a vote and the new “Special Direction” sailed through (in
what sounded to be) a unanimous vote! (I never got to give
my speech.)
How did this sail through so easily? Because the anti-abortion movement outside the church was
so strong that by the time we got to General Conference
they had convinced virtually every Wesleyan that abortion was wrong. A social
movement outside our denomination had brought a new stance inside. When we look at the stance today, it seems
anemic. Why only a “Special Direction?” Shouldn’t we require
every member to promise they won’t get an abortion or
perform them? But, at the time a “Special
direction’ was all we thought we could get. And that
is all we have still.
So, what does all this have to do with alcohol? Because that’s precisely how
denominations got their anti-alcohol stances too. The Temperance Movement
and the 19th century Prohibition movement
were so convincing that churches added tee-totaler statements against alcohol. The Wesleyan
Methodist church was the first denomination in
-----------------
Which brings us to the question of the
week. The convictions of church people
change over time—they discard old convictions and add new ones. These changes
mean a denomination’s “rules” are not fixed but dynamic. They have changed in
the past—adding some and subtracting others—and they will change in the future.
So if this is true, What Articles
of religion, Membership
Commitments, and Special
Directions need to be either added or
dropped today to calibrate the church’s “collective convictions” for “this
present age?”
(Apologies to the many non-Wesleyans this
week—but you are invited to give us advice—our General
Conference meets this summer)
So, what do you
think?
Click here to comment or read
comments for the first few weeks after this posting
The Wesleyan Discipline, 2004 (Thanks to the West Michigan District)