ACSWP releases its review of General Assembly actions
Commnetary by Marie Bowen, Special to The Layman, November 27, 2012
The Advisory Committee on Social Witness Policy (ACSWP) recently posted a report summarizing its view of actions taken by the 2012 General Assembly on items related to social witness. The lengthy compilation (25 pages) is more than a straight forward report of the GA actions. ACSWP includes their view of the original proposal to the GA, amendments made to it in the assembly process and in some cases points made in ACSWP’s own commentary (Advice and Counsel). In other words, the compilation goes well beyond the GA actions and reveals the particular concerns and biases of ACSWP.
If you are familiar with ACSWP you anticipate certain themes. ACSWP frequently appeals for government intervention, for increased government programs, and full funding of those programs. They hammer the same ideologies year after year. Poverty is seen as the root of all evil, contrary to Scripture which says it is the love of money that is the root of all evil (I Timothy 6:10). Generosity – a Christian virtue – is replaced by entitlements doled out by government. And personal choice is touted as a “right” in the matter of abortion, but “injustice” when exercising one’s moral objection to abortion or same sex marriage.
Let me give you just a few examples of places in the compilation where bias is showing and then I will focus on at least one place where their information is inaccurate.
ACSWP mentions 10 areas of focus in the GA actions on church growth but chooses to expand on only one — the matter of establishing maximum compensation levels. Money is to be taken from churches paying high salaries (churches already doing the heavy lifting in their presbyteries in mission funding and community programs) and given to small churches paying low salaries. It is a wonderful thing when large churches partner with a smaller church and provide support. But, the love in that action is totally lost when it is a requirement administered by the denomination. ACSWP misses that distinction in their report.
ACSWP has long been a fan of the Belhar Confession, supporting it as a document necessary to racial justice without critical analysis of its theological weaknesses. In their Advice and Counsel on this GA item they cannot resist a plug for two more of their favorite documents: the ACCRA document and the Kairos Palestine declaration.
ACSWP’s analysis of the Mid-Council Report quoted (from their Advice and Counsel document) that they were “particularly concerned with the nature of the missional church that is to be recreated in the absence of significant attention to economic constraints and any corporate social witness or education …” Reading between the lines one hears ACSWP’s socialist monetary views and can imagine that they are unable to find a role for themselves in the missional church envisioned by the Mid Council Report recommendations.
Also included in the report is a GA action recommending that MRTI investigate health insurance companies paying particular attention to political contributions, large profit margins and compensation paid to top executives. In keeping with their bias against large corporations they also highlighted the GA action that calls for all PCUSA councils and entities to review their financial ties to large banks and Wall Street institutions and calls for Congress to investigate such as well.
ACSWP also commented on GA’s disapproval of a statement that “Israel’s law and Practices Constitute Apartheid Against Palestinian People.” ACSWP had recommended an alternate resolution which sought to apply the “apartheid” label to Israel’s laws and policies at the UN level and would have “provided for the education of the church” on this viewpoint.
Advice and Counsel from ACSWP supported revising the definition of marriage by replacing “a man and a woman” with “two people.” Instead, the GA acted to encourage a two year period of respectful dialogue. Tones of disappointment are discernible in a long paragraph reasoning that same-gender couples and lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) individuals are in some way not equally valued, welcomed or nurtured by the church as long as the marriage definition remains unchanged.
In the matter of reproductive justice, ACSWP applauded the disapproval of a measure that would have provided a medical benefits plan that does not pay for abortions. They commented that a plan for relief of conscience already exists and that “a woman’s right to have available to her the full range of reproductive options must also exist, and should be a part of the church’s own medical plan.”
ACSWP erred however in stating that the PCUSA has “strongly and consistently affirmed that women may face situations in which the decision to terminate a pregnancy may be a morally valid decision” (emphasis mine). The actual language of the PCUSA policy says that “the considered decision of a woman to terminate a pregnancy can be a morally acceptable … decision.” While I believe strongly that all abortions are immoral, I would argue that there is a subtle, but important difference between “valid” and “acceptable.” Something may be acceptable (adequate, satisfactory) but not rise to the level of valid (well grounded, incontestable). ACSWP does not mention that the policy also qualifies those decisions it considers “acceptable.” Listed as “possible justifying circumstances” are “medical indications of severe physical or mental deformity, conception as a result of rape or incest, or conditions under which the physical or mental health of either woman or child would be gravely threatened.”
Ultimately, it is only God’s word that is incontestable and He says, “Keep yourself far from a false matter; do not kill the innocent and righteous. For I will not justify the wicked.” Exodus 23:7 (NKJ)[i]
While ACSWP cannot be held responsible for the actions taken by the General Assembly it should be noted that they do have an opportunity to give advice and counsel on nearly every piece of GA business. It could be argued that this gives ACSWP undue influence on the direction and long term development of policies in the PCUSA.
Marie Bowen began her involvement with Presbyterians Pro-Life (PPL) as a volunteer in 1988 and became the executive director in 2005. PPL is an independent, nonprofit corporation made up of members and pastors of the Presbyterian Church (USA). PPL’s website states that, “With the Christian Church throughout history, we believe that God, who made us in His own image, has forbidden us to shed innocent blood. PPL is committed to strengthening the bonds of family love and nurture, and to protecting innocent life.”
PCUSA, Problem Pregnancies and Abortion, 204th General Assembly, 1992, p.11.