Division ranks controversial Washington Office, Church and Society Magazine low
By Paula R. Kincaid, The Layman Online, September 25, 2000
The Washington Office and Church and Society Magazine were ranked the lowest in the prioritization process by the committee scrutinizing the National Ministries Division.
Facilitator Dan Rift, associate director of Worldwide Ministries Division, said the rankings showed “two strong messages” on high priorities, and “two strong messages” on low priorities.
The committee, composed entirely of elected members of the General Assembly Council, ranked the evangelism program and the racial ethnic congregational enhancement program as high priorities.
Done on a point system where a unanimous high priority was 105 points, a unanimous medium was 63 and a unanimous low was 21, evangelism had 99 points and the racial ethnic congregational enhancement had 86. By comparison, the Washington Office had 39 points and Church and Society Magazine had 29.
The Washington Office
The Washington Office has drawn criticism for years. It is supposed to base its efforts on General Assembly guidance on public policy. But a 1999 study by Presbyterian Action for Faith and Freedom shows that of the 53 advocacy messages the office directed toward Congress over a 14-month period, only 34 made any reference to such guidance. And in just 21 cases did the Assembly’s action actually mandate the specific stance taken by the Washington Office.
Only three of the advocacy messages made any reference to Biblical teachings.
The same study showed that of the 53 advocacy messages, 37 dealt with highly partisan issues, issues “where the vast majority of Democrats are arrayed against the vast majority of Republicans.” In every one of those 37 issues, the position advocated by the Washington Office corresponded to the Democratic position, this despite the fact that in a 1996 survey by the Pew Research Center more 60 percent of PCUSA members identified themselves as Republicans.
Presbyterian Action also reported, “The Washington Office is not effective on Capitol Hill. Its problem is that politicians can count votes, and they know that the office doesn’t represent Presbyterian voters. When we talk with congressional aides, both Democrats and Republicans, say they pay little attention to denominational lobbying offices like our own.”
If Washington is paying little attention to the Washington Office, Presbyterians are paying even less. A Research Services study asked elders and pastors to evaluate the effectiveness of the Washington Office. Only 5 percent of the elders deemed it effective and only 17 percent of the pastors. Only 2 percent of members and 5 percent of elders reported having any contact with the Washington Office.
Social justice magazine
The lowest priority was Church and Society Magazine, which publishes six issues a year. One issue deals with General Assembly social justice actions and each of the other five explore a contemporary justice concerns.
The September/October 1999 issue of Church and Society focused on hate. Writers from several denominations, including the PCUSA blamed the church for racism, homophobia and violence against women.
In fact, they contended the PCUSA actively perpetuated these expressions of hate. One example is an article by Chris Glaser titled, “If the Church Had Been There, Matthew Shepard Would Not Have Died.”
He blamed the Presbyterian Church (USA) for Shepard’s death. “In Matthew’s final years of high school, as he was developing the normal crushes and contemplating what he would do with his life, the Presbyterian Church was busy codifying its anti-gay position by an amendment to our Book of Order. … And the night of Matthew’s death, the Presbyterian church was sleeping on its ecclesiastical sofa, having declared a moratorium on decisions regarding homosexuality.”
The process
The prioritization process began with an overview of each of the program areas. PCUSA staff prepared notebooks containing information on each program area including the program’s goal/mission and mandate, the constituency served by the program, the program’s outcomes, how many staff, program funding, program activities, and if less money was available, what would be done differently.
The committee then split into two groups and began the prioritization process. After each group finalized their rankings, they returned to the full committee and drew the two rankings into one.