An Opinion
by
Sylvia Dooling
I’m sure you have heard of the phenomena called urban legends and suburban
myths.
Urban legends are stories story that appear “mysteriously” and spread
spontaneously in varying forms. They usually contain elements of humor or
horror, they make for good storytelling, and although they don’t have to be
false, they almost always are.
Suburban myths are common misconceptions that are uncritically passed on as
established truths by “experts” and non-experts alike.
While they’re not quite the same, both urban legends and suburban myths have
this in common the more they are told, the more they are believed. Simple
repetition becomes “evidence” of their truth.
I remember one such story from high school. It was about an unnamed girl who
had a “beehive” hairdo. Because it was so difficult to style, she would go
long periods without washing it. During one such interval, a black widow
spider nested in her hair, and killed her one night as she lay sleeping. It
was a great story, and it took only a handful of days before every girl in
our school was sure that “beehive” hairdos were lethal. Later, I discovered
that the story had circulated around the entire country in a variety of
versions. The only problem, of course, is that it wasn’t true!
The kind of “story” also occurs almost daily on the Internet. For instance,
one that regularly shows up in my e-mail box has to do with atheist Madelyn
Murray O’Hare and her alleged efforts to put a stop to religious
broadcasting. The almost hysterical note is usually accompanied by a plea
that I immediately contact my congressman. The only problem, of course, is
that the story has no basis in fact.
Voices of Orthodox Women has recently become the subject of a similar kind
of “story.” The story to which I refer will never circulate widely enough to
become an urban legend, but within the confines of the Presbyterian
community it has already become somewhat of a suburban myth a common
misconception that is being uncritically passed on as established truth by
“experts” and non-experts alike.
While the VOW story is told in several different ways, each time that it is
repeated, the same conclusion is drawn that we occupy a position on the
extreme religious right. And, if we occupy the extreme religious right, then
our ideas can be ignored.
Hmmm. Where do you suppose that this story is coming from? Well, I have a
few clues, and the first of them comes from the recent review of the Women’s
Ministry Program Area by Research Services.
Early on in the review process, I was contacted by Research Services and
offered the opportunity for VOW to be included in a special survey not one
that would be analyzed as part of the voice of the church, but one that
would have no scientific validity because it was not part of a random
sampling of Presbyterians. That is to say, it was designed merely to allow
the people on the VOW network to express their opinions.
The VOW board declined the offer for a couple of reasons. First, we were
bound by board policy not to release our mailing list. But, of equal
importance was the concern that the process itself not marginalize us.
How would that happen?
Well, in my conversations with Research Services, it was said right up front
that they intended to place VOW and Voices Of Sophia at the two extremes of
the church. Moreover, this is precisely what they ended up doing in their
analysis. Comparing the answers that VOS gave to the Research Services
survey and the answers that VOW found in its own survey, Research Services
concluded, “neither survey should be seen as providing results that are
representative of Presbyterians, in general.”
The second clue is even more recent.
In the March 6, 2000 edition of the _Presbyterian Outlook,_ there is an
editorial written by “The Editors” entitled “The (Seemingly) Endless
Struggle.” The editorial references the positive review of the Women’s
Ministry Program Area by Research Services, and opines that the real issue
is “not about solving problems; it’s about theology and control.”
“We’re involved in a long-term struggle. Advocates at both ends of the
spectrum believe their theological views to be mutually exclusive
therefore they cannot tolerate their opponents’ position.”
There it is again, the not so subtle message that Voices of Orthodox Women
represents one of the extremes of our church — one of the ends of the
spectrum.
These are but two of a variety of places in which this misconceived “myth”
is being uncritically passed on as established truth by “experts” and
non-experts alike. But let’s take a look at the evidence.
What does VOW actually believe? What do we stand for? What do we advocate?
The VOW statement of faith says that we believe “in the Triune God Father,
Son and Holy Spirit the authority of Scripture, the biblical doctrines
taught in _The Book of Confessions_, the sinfulness of human nature, the
redemptive and transforming work of Jesus Christ, and Christ’s sole Lordship
over every area of life.”
In addition, VOW upholds _the Book of Order_, and is committed to using the
political process that is outlined in our Presbyterian Constitution to work
for renewal and reformation. We have never disrupted the orderly process of
GA with a demonstration, nor have we held meetings behind closed doors for
the purpose of subverting the polity of the church.
So what is it that makes VOW an extremist group?
We are a network of women and men who serve the church and uphold its
historic faith. We are members in good standing of the PC(USA) who are
simply concerned that the WMPA always uphold biblical and constitutional
standards in all resources and programs that it offers to the women of our
church. According to the findings of the Presbyterian Panel about the
average Presbyterian, we’re kind of average. We’re just a little more vocal
and active.
If what VOW stands for is extremist, then how do the story tellers define
the “middle?” If what VOW stands for is extremist, then we Presbyterians no
longer know who we are, and the institution of which we are a part no longer
has either confessional nor constitutional integrity.