Network of Amendment A proponents crafts strategies By Parker T. Williamson The Presbyterian Layman Nov/Dec, 1997 CHICAGO – During an organizing meeting of the Covenant Network, participants divided into regional strategy groups to share ideas on obtaining confirmation of the proposed Amendment A by a majority of the presbyteries. Members of the southeast strategy group, led by Gene TeSelle, president of a liberal activist group known as the Witherspoon Society, shared the consensus that with a few exceptions, presbyteries in their region would reject Amendment A. Assessing methods used last year in their attempt to defeat Amendment B (the ordination standards that are now G-6.0106b of the Constitution), members of the group said that some of the ways they tried to educate their presbyteries backfired on them. Spokespersons from Greater Atlanta and National Capital Presbyteries reported that “presentations by a panel of experts,” e.g., biblical scholars, polity professionals, psychologists, sociologists, etc., who were described as “diverse” because they represented different fields of expertise but were all gay-ordination proponents, were not well-received. In National Capital Presbytery, when it turned out that only one of the presbytery’s five-member “panel of experts” favored the constitutional amendment that was being discussed, people accused the planning team of stacking the deck. But Rev. Robert Craig, pastor of the New York Avenue Presbyterian Church in Washington, D.C., who has publicly declared that he will not obey the Constitution because he opposes its ordination standards, defended the panel selection in National Capital Presbytery. “I sensed that the selection of the presentation panel was pretty well done,” he said. Rev. Susan Andrews, also from National Capital, agreed: “There was no intent for them to be biased,” she said. Endorsements and testimonies The idea of obtaining endorsements from prominent Presbyterian leaders was also discussed. Rev. James Lowrey, pastor of Idlewild Presbyterian Church in Memphis, Tenn., felt that this approach was not wise in his area. “I’ve got the tallest steeple in Memphis Presbytery,” he said. “But the die is cast there [in opposition to Amendment A], and it would probably be better for me not to speak at all.” Some members of the group advocated setting up a presbytery event in advance of the meeting at which the voting will take place. Rev. Joanna Adams said she favored this kind of setting because it allowed the discussion to occur in a more personal, less parliamentary format. Rev. Robert Craig agreed and said that the most effective presentations in that kind of context were not those that dealt with the issues but those that included personal testimony. Craig spotlighted Adams’ presentation earlier in the Chicago meeting and also at the Syracuse Assembly in which she declared that one of her two children was homosexual as the kind of presentation that is “very powerful.” Avoid links with homosexuality and adultery Rev. Buddy Ennis urged Amendment A advocates to move their presbytery debates away from the subject of homosexuality. “The more we can broaden this beyond homosexuality, the better,” he said. Susan Andrews agreed with Ennis and applied his counsel to the subject of adultery as well. Andrews said there is a widespread perception that if you are opposed to limiting sexual behavior to the covenant of marriage [the current constitutional standard], “then you are for adultery.” She encouraged presbytery strategists to “find some positive things we can say about Amendment A.” Lowrey suggested something positive: Amendment A would enlarge the pool of acceptable candidates for ordination. He complained that constitutional standards now in place “exclude many candidates.” Deny difference between A and B Craig said that a key strategy must be “to show that Amendment A is not the opposite of Amendment B [the standard that is now in the Constitution].” Craig said that promotional material must suggest that Amendment A is saying essentially the same thing, but is doing so “in more general and less specific language on the dividing issues.” Adams agreed, saying she knew people who voted for Amendment B, even though they were uncomfortable with some of the language, because they felt that it took a positive stand on a moral issue. “There are possibilities for Amendment A among people who voted for B,” she said, “if we can show that A is the same as B but with more of a sense of grace.” |
|
|
Home
· The
Presbyterian Layman ·
News |
|
