PHEWA's view of inclusiveness and of implementing General Assembly policy

By Terry Schlossberg, PPL Executive Director
(Reprinted from Presbyterians Pro-Life NEWS, Spring 1999)

The 1998 General Assembly instructed the Presbyterian Health, Education, and Welfare Association (PHEWA) "to expand its membership and to include all organizations that desire affiliation with the organization...who will work to implement General Assembly policy." The G.A. action also requires compliance with written "covenants" between PHEWA and National Ministries Division and between PHEWA and its networks.

The G.A. action cleared the way for PPL's exploration of membership. As soon as the action was made official by vote of the full Assembly in June, I faxed another request for application and membership requirements to the PHEWA office in Louisville and requested a meeting to discuss membership requirements.

With the assistance of General Assembly Council (GAC) executive director John Detterick, the meeting was held in February 1999, during a five day meeting of the GAC. Those who attended were John Detterick, Helen Locklear, executive director of PHEWA, Lois Rifner, President of PHEWA, and Ilona Buzick, representing the board of directors of OneByOne, an organization committed to minister to those in conflict with their sexuality, and I.

I came to the meeting with three questions related to the PHEWA membership requirements.

Requirement to support homosexual behavior
PHEWA requires its network members to affirm its Statement of Inclusion. I noted that the statement does not make specific reference to those who engage in unrepentant homosexual behavior. However, given the context of this statement, and other statements and activities of PHEWA, I asked if affirming the statement is meant to be an implicit affirmation of the effort to normalize homosexual behavior and grant ordination rights to those engaged in such behavior. Ms. Rifner responded that it is. I answered that the requirement would be a barrier to membership by PPL unless we in PPL were able to make an exception (i.e. register our "responsible dissent" from PHEWA's position on sexuality). I asked if PHEWA would allow that exception. Ms. Rifner was unsure. She said the board would have to make that decision.

Requirement of financial control by PHEWA
PHEWA requires that all contributions to its networks be deposited at their office in Louisville, and that PHEWA provide the "financial management and services" for the networks. The current ten networks are not financially self-sustaining and rely heavily on grants from Louisville offices. PPL, like all renewal organizations, is entirely financially self-sustaining, has always provided its own financial management and services, and is independently audited each year.

The 1998 General Assembly directed that PHEWA's "constituent groups work toward becoming financially independent and self-sustaining." I asked what steps PHEWA is taking to end the dependence of groups on denominational funding and how this requirement does that.

Mr. Detterick asked if PHEWA requires an audit. Ms. Rifner assured him they do. He expressed the opinion that an audit should provide sufficient assurance of financial accountability and that otherwise their requirement seems paternalistic.

Ms. Rifner said the requirement is necessary to assure the accountability of the networks. She added that accountability oversight is required also in PHEWA staff editing of newsletters and other publications of the networks. My question remained unanswered.

PHEWA's lack of openness to opposing views
My final concern was that PHEWA and PPL have had a relationship of tension in the past. I noted strong differences in convictions on moral issues. I asked how organizations like PPL and OneByOne were likely to be regarded in the application process. Ms. Rifner said that the board would have concerns about the efforts of PPL to overturn church policy on abortion. Mr. Detterick expressed surprise that PHEWA, which is working to overturn church policy regarding homosexuality, would object to PPL seeking change simply because the current abortion policy is one they do not wish to see changed.

Mr. Detterick suggested that PHEWA and PPL might put aside questions of membership for the time being and make a genuine effort at dialogue with each other, seeking better understanding and possible ways to work together. He asked if PPL would respond to an invitation for such dialogue with PHEWA. I said we would respond enthusiastically. He asked PHEWA to issue such an invitation. I asked to have OneByOne included.

PHEWA skirts the issues again
In mid-April PPL received an invitation from PHEWA. Referring to the February meeting with John Detterick, they have arranged a meeting at General Assembly for "groups seeking network membership." I responded that two PPL board members will attend that meeting, and asked for assurance that the meeting will be open to all interested parties. I also reminded PHEWA that Mr. Detterick had proposed a meeting to dialogue about the issues. A letter in return from PHEWA staff Helen Locklear notified me that the meeting "is not open," and that the "issues" for discussion are "membership issues."

To begin receiving Presbyterians Pro-Life NEWS by mail, click here.

© Presbyterians Pro-Life
P.O. Box 11130
Burke, VA 22009-1130

Top