PHEWA committee adjourns without completing report An analysis by Terry Schlossberg The Presbyterian Layman Nov/Dec, 1997 The Moderator’s Special Committee on the Presbyterian Health, Education, and Welfare Association (PHEWA) held its final meeting at Columbia Seminary in Decatur, Ga., Sept. 11-12. It adjourned without producing even a rough draft of its report to the General Assembly. Members instead authorized their chairman, William Forbes of Westfield, N.J., to draft the report and distribute it for comment, and will let the chairman decide whether they need to meet again by conference call prior to submitting their report. Their only concern seemed to be discussing strategy for defending it at the upcoming General Assembly meeting in Charlotte, N.C. The concerns about PHEWA that led to the appointment of this committee are closely connected to the major debate in the church. In a nutshell, shall Presbyterian mission money be used to support groups that defy constitutional standards of sexuality? The 1996 General Assembly called for a special committee to clarify the definitions of “advocacy,” “responsible dissent,” and “program accountability”; to establish guidelines for PHEWA’s financial accounting; and to create a vehicle “in cooperation with current and potential new networks,” for multiplying opportunities for additional network ministries. Fox guards henhouse The special committee was assembled by GA Moderator John Buchanan in 1996 in response to General Assembly action calling for investigation of the organization. Of the special committee’s seven members, four – including the chairman – are current or former members of PHEWA. A fifth is a member of the Justice sub-group of the National Ministries Division (NMD), which has refused to hold PHEWA accountable for its support of the homosexual agenda. The special committee did the bulk of its investigation by means of an opinion survey and hearings at General Assembly, where it heard PHEWA members affirm PHEWA. Accountability concerns Though PHEWA is supported financially by the denomination and is sheltered in the offices of the National Ministries Division, it does not report to the General Assembly. The way in which PHEWA has expended the tens of thousands of dollars in denominational grants has been murky for years. Finally, in response to a GA directive in 1996, the organization agreed to allow outside audits of its finances, but businessman John Bryan, elder from San Diego, and a member of the special committee, pointed out that no report the committee has seen provides details about how the money is spent. In addition to PHEWA’s advocacy against constitutional standards and its lack of financial accountability, the 1996 General Assembly also noted an inequity between networks of PHEWA that receive financial support and other Presbyterian advocacy organizations that raise all of their own support. The Moderator’s special committee on PHEWA organized in February of 1997, seven months after the General Assembly meeting that called it into being. It did not meet again until the following June during the General Assembly meeting in Syracuse, when it spent two days hearing testimony. The final meeting was in Decatur, Ga., in September. Members spent eight of the approximately 12 hours of the final meeting interacting with two PHEWA-related staff members from Louisville, Helen Locklear, PHEWA’s executive director, and Vernon Broyles, Associate for Social Justice in NMD, and with John Scotland, who had been sent to the meeting by the PHEWA executive board to represent them. On the second day of the meeting, I attended the meeting as an observer from Presbyterians Pro-Life (PPL), and was allowed to speak. Wagenius asked me why PPL would seek membership as a network in PHEWA, and followed up with a question about how I might design a vehicle for including other networks in the organization. Later in the meeting, the committee decided that the short, impromptu exchange that took place, along with the general discussion with the other visitors, met their charge to “design a vehicle in cooperation with current and other new networks.” The committee made no attempt to discuss definitions for “advocacy,” “responsible dissent,” or “program accountability,” that have generated so much concern broadly in the church and are part of their charge from the GA The members concluded that the charge to establish guidelines for financial accounting could be referred to another group in the church. They spent their final meeting hours discussing a possible outline for their report. Several committee members insisted that the report must emphasize the good ministries of PHEWA. One member asked how they know anything about the ministries of PHEWA, and others responded that the source of this information is PHEWA itself. They discussed including a history of PHEWA, a report of their committee’s work, and their recommendations. They did not agree on any specific recommendation before their meeting, scheduled to end at noon on Saturday, broke up at 5 p.m. Friday. “Shall Presbyterian mission money be used to support groups that defy the constitutional standards of sexuality?” That is the question that led the General Assembly to create this special committee on PHEWA. The question was never addressed. Terry Schlossberg is executive director of Presbyterians Pro-Life. |
|
|
Home
· The
Presbyterian Layman ·
News |
|
