Committee recommends continued funding for NNPCW
By John H. Adams, The Presbyterian Layman, January 14, 1999
LOUISVILLE, Ky. – Largely ignoring the National Network of Presbyterian College Women’s resources that draw from the ReImagining God movement, advocate lesbianism and pre-marital sex, and promote defiance of the Presbyterian Church (USA)’s constitutional standard on ordination, the committee reviewing the organization gave the Network a vote of confidence and called for continued funding from the denomination.
General Assembly Moderator
Douglas W. Oldenburg Published material bypassed
Representatives of the Network presented their case almost totally apart from their published material and web pages. They said they should remain tethered to the denomination because they were women “marginalized” by the church, that they needed space to continue their “faith journeys,” that many had been long-time Presbyterians, that they had little in common with other campus ministries, including the PCUSA’s, and that they needed a forum to share their stories, pain and experiences.
The seven-member Special Committee to Evaluate the National Network of Presbyterian College Women, following the urging of General Assembly Moderator Douglas W. Oldenburg, agreed to a draft report that did not include any details of Network material that contradicts Scripture and the PCUSA’s constitution. Rather, the report briefly acknowledged that “some materials … violated policies of the PCUSA, were inconsistent with our confessions and were lacking in biblical and theological foundation.”
Oldenburg, who came to the committee’s report-drafting session with his own written guidelines for findings and recommendations, insisted that no specific infractions be mentioned and that a summary statement was sufficient. Diane Wright, a committee member from Florence, S.C., asked Oldenburg whether overlooking the unbiblical material in the Network’s resources would constitute a “complete report,” as mandated by the General Assembly. Oldenburg responded that he understood the committee wanted to give NNPCW “a fresh start.”
Committee approves second chance
And so it did. Glossing over the Network’s published material, the committee decided that the Network deserved a second chance based on what it assumes the Network will do rather than what it has done.
Committee members completed their draft report in Louisville on Jan. 12. Although they plan to refine their draft in a telephone conference call, there was no indication that it would be substantially changed. The draft affirms the Network, commends its leadership, calls for including biblical and constitutional standards in future material and asks the 211th General Assembly to approve funding for full-time staff for the Network.
The committee did not address comprehensively its charge by the 1998 General Assembly in Charlotte: 1) to review the current materials and program of the network and 2) to determine whether those materials conformed to Scripture and the denomination’s constitutional standards.
NNPCW members and staff
address review committee Tough questioning limited
The only tough questioning about Network resources concerned its link to hard-core pornography on its former internet site. “If you knew it [the link] was there, why didn’t you take it off?” Oldenburg asked representatives of the Network. There was a flurry of explanations: an unintentional mistake; an accident; ignorance; the work of a former Network member who established the link to pornography without approval of the leadership; an “embarrassment.” But the explanation that seemed to carry the most weight with the committee claimed that the denomination was at fault for not having given the NNPCW sufficient funding or full-time staff.
Beyond accountability
Network representatives promoted their merit as college women generally while the Presbyterian Lay Committee, Voices of Orthodox Women and the Presbyterian Coalition focused specifically on written material sponsored by the Network.
Young Women Speak, which Network leaders say is out of print, unabashedly promotes ReImagining God theology, lesbianism and pre-marital sex, and opposition to the denomination’s Constitutional standard requiring chastity in singleness and fidelity in marriage for ministers, elders and deacons.
Executive Editor of
The Presbyterian Layman
Parker T. Williamson Parker T. Williamson, executive editor of The Presbyterian Layman, told the committee that he could accept a new start for the Network if its leaders would publicly disassociate themselves and the organization from their past positions.
“In light of what they have published, and as a matter of record,” Williamson urged the committee, “you must ask them if they truly repent of advocating 1) Re-Imagining God ideologies, 2) sexual relationships outside the covenant of marriage and 3) overturning and defying the denomination’s biblical and constitutional ordination standards.”
If they do not, Williamson added, “I urge you to conclude that the Network has declared itself beyond denominational accountability and is therefore not entitled to office space, staff, support, funding, letterheads, conferences, web sites or publications that bear the imprimatur of the Presbyterian Church (USA).”
Members of the committee never asked the Network whether it renounced Re-Imagining God, same-sex relationships and overthrowing the ordination standard. And much of the testimony of Network members and supporters suggested that they did not welcome boundaries that would limit their campus programs.
Theological limits urged
Those who spoke against continued funding and sponsorship of the Network said Presbyterian agencies should be required to reflect the theological limits established by the denomination.
Network advocate
Barbara Kellam Scott
“I never heard the word ‘boundary’ before in the Presbyterian Church and I hope I never hear it again.” But Network advocate Barbara Kellam Scott suggested that the very idea of imposing theological boundaries on the Network was wrong. “I never heard the word ‘boundary’ before in the Presbyterian Church and I hope I never hear it again.” She denounced The Presbyterian Layman and opponents of the Network for “villainization, demonization … distortions and lies.”
In their presentations, Sylvia Dooling, Terry Schlossberg, Kathy Banaszak and Kathleen Berg of Voices of Orthodox Women and Williamson addressed point by point the resources published by the Network.
Dooling said the Network’s resources, including material on its new web pages, “reject any ‘Lord’ greater than their own collective experiences and imaginations.”
Basic beliefs rejected
Schlossberg pointed to a number of Network resources that rejected “basic beliefs of Christian faith. The materials challenge the confessional understanding of biblical authority, introduce a Mother god and goddess worship, substitute Christian sacraments, and omit the cross.”
Banaszak, a social worker and clinical counselor, raised concerns about the Network’s rituals of “rage” and “healing” for victims of rape. She cited legal, psychological and theological problems of self-styled therapy. “I would think that the Presbyterian Church would not want to assume the legal liability intrinsic in their sponsorship of untrained, unsupervised young college students attempting this sort of simplistic therapy by catharsis on scattered college campuses,” she said. “Legally, you are talking about ‘practicing without a license.’”
Kathleen Berg of Otis, Colo., said she, a victim of abuse and anorexia, could identify with the problems cited by the Network in Young Women Speak. Berg says she tried to deal with her problems using strategies similar to those employed by the network. She failed, she said, until she was held accountable by Christians in the Presbyterian Church – accountability that pointed “without compromise or distraction to Jesus Christ; accountability that sets boundaries within which we can be truly free to grow, discover and heal.”
Presbyterian Coalition testifies
Clayton Bell, pastor of Highland Park Church of Dallas, spoke on behalf of the Presbyterian Coalition and opposed continued funding for the Network. He said the group had every right to raise its own support – as do independent groups like the Coalition, Presbyterian Lay Committee and Voices of Orthodox Women – but not to use Christian offerings to promote ideologies that deny Jesus Christ.
Williamson reminded the committee that the General Assembly had voted 523-17 in 1991 against a report that affirmed the sexual ethic advocated by the Network; 526-4 in 1994 against the key themes of the ReImagining God movement, now promoted by the Network, and that presbyteries had voted twice, in 1997 and 1998, to affirm the denomination’s historic ordination standard, now being opposed by the Network.
“We would expect that the Network’s program and resources would reflect the theology and ethics of our Reformed tradition, certainly that it would not promote positions that the General Assembly has specifically rejected and declared beyond the boundaries of Christian faith,” Williamson said.
‘Spectrum of belief’
“Our packet was never meant to be put on a pedestal,” said Rebecca Barnes. “There’s a spectrum of belief.”
Tearfully, Mieke Vandersall of the College of Wooster said that because of her sexual orientation she felt excluded from other campus groups. “The Network is the only thing that has kept me in this church. And now I am in a multiracial, More Light church,” she said.
School teacher / Graduate student
Melissa Kerschner
“There has been no mention of Jesus Christ as an integral part of one’s self-worth … The worth feelings of the NNPCW are only temporary fixes, bandages on a heart that needs a transplant.” Melissa Kerschner, a public school teacher in Cincinnati and graduate student, challenged frequent references by Network members about their need to establish their self-worth. “There has been no mention of Jesus Christ as an integral part of one’s self-worth,” she said, questioning that “worth” could be found in just being “a woman, having sex outside of marriage or being involved in a gay relationship … The worth feelings of the NNPCW are only temporary fixes, bandages on a heart that needs a transplant.”
Sharlyn Stare of Cincinnati Presbytery asked the committee: “Is this the very best ministry we can give to our college students? Do we care enough to send the very best?”