by
Sylvia Dooling
The 214th General Assembly of the PC(USA) voted overwhelmingly to ask the
Advocacy Committee for Women’s Concerns to make two small changes to its
report entitled _Sisters of Mercy, Daughters of Grace Presbyterians and
Prostituted Women._ It took them over a year, but the ACWC has disregarded
that counsel and published its report as originally submitted.
When the report was first considered by The National Issues Committee, the
vast majority of it members were ready to amend the report. However a
representative of The Office of the General Assembly told the committee that
the report could not be amended.
Because it was told that it could not amend the report, The National Issues
Committee approved the report with comment. These comments encouraged the
entire GA to ask ACWC to make the amendments themselves before publishing a
final draft. Meeting in plenary, 94% of the commissioners agreed with the
committee’s request. ACWC was clearly angry with the vote, but told the
assembly that it would consider its counsel.
But, ACWC apparently knows better than 94% of the General Assembly
commissioners.
Now let me be clear. Comments are not binding. The ACWC was not required to
do what it was asked to do. Its members may have considered the comments and
disagreed with them which is their parliamentary prerogative. But, to do so
without so much as acknowledging the GA’s action and without explaining why
they elected to ignore it is, in my opinion, nothing less than arrogant.
The ACWC is one of three General Assembly committees whose only
accountability is to the General Assembly itself. They are not accountable
to the people in the pews, or to any GA officer or administrator. So, when
the GA took time in plenary to debate the committee’s comments, and when
those comments were overwhelmingly affirmed, it seems to me that ACWC would
have been wise to quietly make the requested changes. After all, they did
not change the substance of the report. But, they would have made it more
acceptable and usable to the majority of Presbyterians who will now, most
likely, let it fade into obscurity.
What did the National Issues Committee ask the ACWC to do? What changes did
the GA request that they make to their report? Just two small things.
First, as a matter of balance, they asked the ACWC to add some additional
material to the report’s list of resources. More specifically, they asked
ACWC to include some information from the National Coalition for the
Protection of Children (NCPCF), and from OneByOne. The NCPCF was founded and
continues to be directed by a PC(USA) pastor. OneByOne is a ministry within
the PC(USA) that resources congregations that want to help individuals who
are struggling with all kinds of sexual brokenness. As the paper does
generally, these two resources encourage congregations to minister the
healing and transforming power of Jesus Christ to people who are in
desperate need of it. But, NCPCF and OneByOne do not always agree with ACWC
ideologues as to what such a ministry should look like. So, ACWC vetoed
their inclusion in its report.
Second, ACWC was asked to remove two very controversial items from its
resource catalogue. The first was written by Miriam Therese Winter; James B.
Nelson authored the second one. Miriam Therese Winter is a Catholic Nun who
is associated with the Re-Imagining God movement, and whose writings go
beyond the legitimate boundaries of the Christian faith. The book by James
B. Nelson is not only offensive to many Presbyterians, but it promotes
behaviors that are contrary to Scripture and to our Presbyterian
constitutional and confessional standards.
One more thing. As Paul Harvey says, ‘and now for the rest of the story.”
Soon after the end of the 214th General Assembly, I wrote an opinion piece
entitled, _’General Assembly Sends ACWC a Gentle but Clear Message.” [1]
_I also wrote a letter to our Stated Clerk, Clifton Kirkpatrick, to ask him
about the instructions that were given The National Issues Committee by his
representative instructions that told them that they could not amend the
report. Included in Mr. Kirkpatrick answer was this sentence,
_’Since the report included proposals to the Church, I believe it would
have been proper to permit amendment of the report if the committee had
been so inclined.”_
I witnessed the work of the National Issues Committee, and it was clear that
it was ‘so inclined,” but by the time that the Clerk responded to my letter
the damage had been done and could not be undone. The committee did the only
thing that was left to them approve the report and include their concerns by
adding two comments. It also appears that with a 94% vote of the GA that the
amendments would have passed and the ACWC report would have been approved as
amended.
Mistakes cannot be corrected once the Moderator brings down the final gavel
at least not until the following year. But, the Advocacy Committee for
Women’s Concerns has sent a strong message to the commissioners of the 214th
GA and to all future commissioners. It says, *’We will not change our
reports unless we are compelled to change them.” *
This is a serious response and should not go unnoticed by the church.
[1] http://layman.wpengine.com/Documents/Doc0136.aspx