Presbyterians Pro-Life
Posted October 6, 1999

The PC(USA) body called the General Assembly Council met recently in San Juan, Puerto Rico. John Detterick is the executive director. They are an elected body; however synod and General Assembly staff are active in their meetings and often outnumber them. This was the first of three meetings they will have between the 1999 and 2000 General Assemblies. What follows is a brief explanation of the GAC and a summary of some of the business they took up at their recent meeting.

There are four levels of government in the Presbyterian Church (USA) today: the session of each local congregation, the presbytery which is for the most part comprised of churches in a particular geographical area, the synod which is comprised of a number of presbyteries, and the General Assembly which is our highest governing body. Not all Presbyterians understand the way in which the governing bodies of the our denomination are related, and how their responsibilities differ. However, for most Presbyterians the General Assembly Council (GAC) is a particular mystery. It is not a governing body and it is not the staff. Just exactly what is this Council and what is its effect on our denomination?

The General Assembly Council has undergone several changes in structure since reunion in 1983. Currently its voting membership is comprised of 3 General Assembly Moderators including the current Moderator, 16 synod representatives (there are 16 synods), 50 presbytery representatives (there are 173 presbyteries), 2 Youth/Young Adult Members, 1 Moderator of Presbyterian Women, and 25 at-large members. Each serves a maximum of two three-year terms. One-third are ministers, one-third laymen, and one-third laywomen. The Nominating Committee has a goal of "at least 20 percent racial ethnic" representation though the make up of the PC(USA) currently is roughly 7% racial-ethnic.

A booklet entitled Organization for Mission explains that "The primary purpose of the General Assembly Council is to lead and coordinate the total mission program." (p. 4) It has responsibility for policy recommendations and implementation:

The Open Meeting Policy is an example of a policy which originated in the GAC and was adopted by the General Assembly as a churchwide policy. There are many other examples. There are two Advocacy Committees (one on Racial/Ethnic Concerns and one on Women's Concerns), and an Advisory Committee on Social Witness Policy, all of which are charged to bring policy recommendations to the General Assembly.

There are three Ministry Divisions made up of staff charged to carry out the mission work of the denomination. They are Congregational Ministries Division (CMD), National Ministries Division (NMD) and Worldwide Ministries Division (WMD).

Each division has an associated committee of elected persons which oversees the work of each division.

John Detterick was confirmed by the 1998 General Assembly as the Executive Director of the GAC. The first of a list of responsibilities of his office is

You can obtain a complete copy of the Organization for Mission from the Office of the Stated Clerk, 100 Witherspoon St., Louisville, KY 40202. I have cited the page numbers where I have taken quotes from the document.

General Assembly actions must be carried out faithfully to be effectual. It is up to the staff to implement the actions with the guidance, support and accountability of the GAC. The GAC meets three times a year, with the option of a fourth meeting for each division committee. The General Assembly meets once. Commissioners to General Assembly serve one year. Those elected to the GAC serve up to six years. The General Assembly has more than 500 commissioners. The GAC is now down to fewer than 100 voting members plus staff (which sometimes equal or outnumber the voting members in committee [see examples below]).

I recently returned from the Fall, 1999 GAC meeting which was held in Puerto Rico from Tuesday, September 21 through church services on Sunday, September 26. I was an observer, representing Presbyterians Pro-Life News. Any member of the Presbyterian Church (USA) may observe these meetings. Observing is an indispensable way to learn how the GAC actually works in carrying out its responsibilities. There were some very interesting things to see at this meeting that should be of concern to all Presbyterians.

The PC(USA) Sexuality Curriculum
1. The sexuality curriculum rewrite was referred to the Congregational Ministries Division Committee. The action taken was to

A budget committee at each G.A. is charged to obtain information necessary to arrive at the budget implications for each pending action and advise the G.A. prior to their vote.

There is no plan in place for proceeding with the rewrite. There is only a concern regarding the funding assumed necessary to do the rewrite. GAC staff are responsible to see that G.A. directives are carried out. The sexuality curriculum now exists for every age level from preschool through upper secondary, including revisions and new glossy covers. Now that the G.A. has ordered that the curriculum meet biblical and constitutional standards, money has become the issue.

This should be an action item for commissioners to the 1999 G.A., a majority of whom voted their intent that the curriculum be rewritten. Commissioners to the G.A. of 2000 will be in a position to ask about the progress toward the rewrite. Churches in the presbytery that sent up the overture may also wish to inquire about what has become of the G.A. action.

The G.A. ordered fact-finding of the Women's Ministries Program Area
2. Not a single word was said publicly about the fact-finding review of the Women's Ministry Program Area at this meeting. This is the program area which includes all the groups involved in selecting Jane Spahr and Letty Russell for the Women of Faith Award this year. The G.A. ordered the GAC executive committee to "establish a fact-finding committee that would be composed of members of the General Assembly Council, excepting anyone representing organizations associated with the Women's Ministries Program Area or the National Ministries Division," to investigate the concerns raised by a commissioner's resolution at the Assembly. The action also called for a process whereby Women's Ministries and the National Ministries Division, as well as "all other interested Presbyterian individuals and groups," could submit information representing their concerns about this program area. The General Assembly asked that a commissioner committee at the 2000 G.A. be established to receive and evaluate the material compiled by the fact-finding team, including all the material submitted to them by groups and individuals.

John Detterick explained to me that they are further behind on this matter than they had hoped to be. Research Services has been developing an instrument to evaluate each program area. They have been asked to refine their instrument and use it as part of the fact-finding process in response to the G.A. on this matter.

Apparently this review process will not come up as business for the corporate body until the next GAC meeting in February. February is the deadline for reports from the GAC to the next G.A. The majority of commissioners at the 1999 G.A. who voted for this fact-finding effort may wish to ask questions about the progress of their action. Questions should be directed to John Detterick in Louisville (502-569-5491).

NNPCW and the G.A. Open Meeting Policy
3. Sylvia Dooling and I sat together as observers of the National Ministries Division Committee (NMDC) and of their Justice sub-committee meeting. I counted 39 people in the room excluding press, all of them appearing to have voice and most of them with vote in committee. However, only 16 of them, fewer than half, are elected members of the committee. There were twelve people at the table in the Justice sub-group meeting; six were staff members; four were determined by the chair to be voting members; all had voice in the deliberations. (I am told that those who are neither staff nor elected are probably corresponding members.)

Chris Gerling, elected member of the GAC, was asked by Gusti Newquist, a leader in NNPCW, to attend the NNPCW leadership conference as representative of the GAC. Chris gave a glowing report of the meeting except for the complications of observers and press. Most of the meeting was closed because NNPCW wrote its own "Open Meeting Policy" which reporters and observers were told was approved by the Stated Clerk's office. Ms. Gerling obviously found the interest of Presbyterians in the NNPCW offensive. But one committee member, Jeff Bridgeman, reminded the group that this has been a highly controversial program where resources have been found to be clearly outside the bounds of the constitution of the PCUSA. Not only that, the 1999 G.A. ordered that the written resources of the NNPCW be discontinued for that very reason, and that a committee of three from National Ministries Division be constituted to work with the NNPCW in developing new resources "that conform to the biblical and confessional standards of the PCUSA."

Presbyterian financial and other support of the NNPCW has been a hot issue for a long time. It is no wonder that Presbyterians were wary of the group continuing to hold meetings in the dark.

Two things happened in the Justice sub-committee that were pertinent to the NNPCW issue. Gary Luhr, director of communications for G.A. offices, clarified the G.A.'s Open Meeting Policy, and the Women's Ministry Program Area announced no funding to carry out the G.A. directives.

Mr. Luhr explained that the G.A. Open Meeting Policy makes no exceptions for different types of meetings and unless it is amended, applies to all meetings. He said that it's an "interpretation" to say the policy applies to one meeting and not to another. Luhr also explained that the policy means the meetings are open to all observers. There is no distinction between observers and press because press simply serve as surrogates for the public, ensuring that Presbyterians know how their contributions to the church are being used.

Many G.A. entities have been violating the G.A.'s Open Meeting Policy by writing their own policies: PHEWA and Presbyterian Women (PW) are two notable examples. The PW Churchwide Coordinating Team has issued a press policy for its Churchwide Gathering next July that is far more restrictive of press than the G.A. policy.

No Funds; Yes Funds
The second newsworthy discussion in the Justice sub-committee was the announcement that no funds are available to assemble the team called for by the G.A. to write new resources for NNPCW. Apparently lack of funds was not a deterrent to holding the NNPCW leadership event for 45 handpicked young women in Seattle this summer, including bringing the desired speakers. Someone in the committee asked Barbara Dua, Director of the Women's Ministry Program Area, if her office would help out with funding. Ms. Dua responded that they would not.

When the Justice sub-committee reported the lack of funds to the NMD committee, youth member Neal Presa moved that since funds were not necessary to forming the NNPCW review committee, they proceed to do that. Division staff head Curtis Kearns interrupted Mr. Presa and told him his motion was premature because it was not yet known where the business of the assembly on the NNPCW had been referred. Mr. Presa then agreed to postpone his motion to the February meeting.

Although the meeting was nearly over when Mr. Presa made his motion, I immediately left the room in search of John Detterick to inquire about the disposition of referrals of G.A. actions. Mr. Detterick promised to get the referrals to me. I explained the urgency since a pertinent motion had just been postponed until February. Mr. Detterick's assistant delivered the referrals to me nearly 24 hours later. The first items on the front page were the referrals of all the NNPCW business from the G.A. to NMD.

Later in the GAC plenary session, a member asked for an explanation for why the funds were not available for NNPCW. Mr. Kearns went to a microphone and said they had not been able to locate the funds to carry out the G.A. directives. When the questioning persisted, we observers watched Mr. Detterick leave his chair on the podium, walk to the back of the room, and crouch beside the sitting Curtis Kearns. When Mr. Detterick returned to the podium, Mr. Kearns returned to the microphone and announced to the GAC that the funds would be found and the directives of the G.A. would be carried out.

You have to be there
This is the Church of Jesus Christ at work. This is not a small matter and it is a matter for which we are all accountable as disciples of Jesus Christ. An editorial in the Oct. 4, 1999 Presbyterian Outlook referred to the effort to know what church entities are doing in places where they prefer not to be observed as "ecclesiastical stalking." That is terminology intended to intimidate. It implies that wanting the work of the Church to be done in the open is an intent to destroy. The ad hominim language is an attack on Presbyterians who care whether actions of the G.A. are carried through or avoided. It ignores the responsibility each of us has for the integrity of the Church. And it ignores the extreme lack of trust church members have in the leadership of our denomination, because of the kinds of betrayals of that trust which have become all too common.

Presbyterians' trust in the NNPCW was violated by meetings and materials that not only violated our constitution but also defied basic beliefs of Christian faith. That trust cannot be rebuilt overnight, and it cannot be rebuilt by what we witnessed at the GAC meeting. Let the Outlook editor remember that the GAC, even if by a slim margin, let stand the giving of awards to advocates of homosexual behavior last June. Many of the actions at the recent GAC meeting violated the trust of Presbyterians who have a right to think that G.A. actions will be enacted faithfully. When staff fail to reorder budget priorities to accomplish the work assigned to them by G.A., Presbyterians' lack of trust increases, and the desire to know grows.

A closing reminder: the meetings of the church are open to all of us. Please, go and see for yourself. And then talk to us in renewal work about what you can do to be involved in the reform and renewal of the mission and message of the Presbyterian Church (USA).