GA to have last word on funding radical college ministry An analysis by John H. Adams The Presbyterian Layman Friday, March 26, 1999 If it looks like a theological aberration, talks like a theological aberration and publishes like a theological aberration, it must be a necessary ministry that needs twice as much money to get on the path of righteousness. And, thus, decided the task force reviewing the National Network of Presbyterian College Women, the Network deserves a pat on the back, a light scolding and a fare-thee-well with a $96,500 annual budget. GA will have the last word The 1999 General Assembly will have the last word: It can unplug the Network from PCUSA sponsorship and its current budget, $50,000 a year; approve the task force’s recommendation; or … There may be another surprise. At the 210th General Assembly in 1998, the Network was on the docket with a request for a three-year budget of $273,000. But there were fireworks – and documented disclosures about the Network’s ties to the ReImagining God movement and a sexual ethic that goes beyond Scripture and the PCUSA constitution. Not surprisingly, commissioners to the 210th voted 306-217 to deny sponsorship and funding for NNPCW, inviting the Network to continue as an independent organization or to become an accountable component of the denomination’s campus ministries. Next occurred an emotional demonstration on the eve of adjournment. It was high theater – teary college women holding candles and singing “This Little Light of Mine.” Rushing, as if on cue, to stand in solidarity with the Network’s “victims” were dozens of people whose ongoing contribution to the PCUSA has been their unceasing opposition of the denomination’s historic ordination standards. So touched by a demonstration orchestrated with the help of Moderator Douglas Oldenburg and General Assembly staff, and also thoroughly lobbied into the early morning hours on the day of adjournment, the 1998 commissioners voted again. The Network got its reprieve. The 1999 commissioners will decide whether that’s a temporary stay. Another defining moment This promises to be another “defining moment” for the PCUSA where evangelicals and moderates assert the need to maintain a Biblical standard and their counterparts argue for policies and programs that adapt to the culture of the times. Similar showdowns have occurred over a liberated sexual ethic (opposed by 1991 commissioners, 523-17); the ReImagining God movement (declared beyond the boundaries of Christianity by 1994 commissioners, 526-4); and presbytery votes in 1997 and 1998 that first established and later affirmed (by a 2 to 1 margin) the constitutional standard requiring candidates for office to maintain fidelity in marriage or chastity in singleness. The Network’s resources unapologetically defied all three of those decisions. Even during the hearing conducted by the task force, the women representing the Network and their supporters never refuted what was well documented by renewal leaders. They did not deny their published prayer to “Christa, our primeval Mother,” an admonition that “Is it possible all you need is a good gay lover?” or the words of one of their theological mentors: “Jesus in reality was not God.” Report now includes criticism Before the task force drafted its report, Oldenburg urged other members to avoid any critical comment about the Network. Through the first draft, Oldenburg’s position prevailed. But during a follow-up conference telephone call, no longer eye-to-eye with their colleagues, task force members James E. Mead and Jeff Bridgeman insisted that the final report include some criticism of the Network’s published materials and resources. And so it was done. The final report said some of the Network’s resources “clearly violated the policies of the PCUSA, being inconsistent with the church’s confessional standards, lacking in Biblical and theological foundation, and failing to provide balanced, accurate resources for study or further discussion.” Furthermore, said the final report, the Network’s Mission Statement and Values Statement failed “to even mention Jesus Christ, or to explicitly state that having a saving relationship with Jesus is important.” Leadership commended The General Assembly Council, meeting in Louisville in February, one-upped the task force in its applause for the Network. On a voice vote, the council attached to the task force report its “commendation” of Network leaders past and present. The task force has cited a multitude of failures under past leadership. So why more money and continued sponsorship for an organization that flaunted the denomination’s standards and does not officially require that its leadership be Presbyterians? Blaming the denomination The blame, says the task force, goes to the denomination for not providing enough money or oversight. That explains why the Network’s literature, admittedly unbiblical, was not redone in the past. (There were no explanations why the literature lasted six years without someone in leadership blowing the whistle.) The task force declared that the denomination should support the Network because it provides a “safe place” for young women who feel “marginalized” by the church. The failures of the denomination included a “crisis in accountability.” Students “were given responsibilities for which they were neither prepared nor qualified.” There was a lack of “methods for objective review of this ministry.” Therefore, rather than abandoning the Network, the task force said, “it is wiser to implement corrective measures to correct and strengthen the Network’s efforts.” The task force plan The task force set forth its own detailed plan for setting the Network on the right path. That would include: no reprinting of the current material; theological oversight for new material; a new mission statement “to assure they are faithful to our Biblical and theological tradition;” a broader constituency of women “of all theological persuasions.” Would the current leaders of NNPCW go for that? Several nodded agreeably when such changes were broached during the hearing in Louisville. There was a willingness to include “both sides” in future material but not necessarily an agreement to abandon theological views that conflict with the denomination’s. It remains to be seen whether the proposed theological oversight will be effective. Simply stated, the task force bet on the future. It anted up some new rules and limits for the college women’s group, apparently with the expectation that there will be a significant metamorphosis. That is a gamble, for the task force made no effort to ascertain whether the Network members truly believe in Presbyterian and Biblical standards. In fact, Oldenburg, an ardent promoter of diversity, frequently suggested that there was room for a variety of theological opinions even on issues that have already been decided, such as ordination standards and sexual ethics. The task force suggested that its report has a divine imprimatur, which “genuinely reflects God’s leading.” The 211th General Assembly must decide, therefore, whether to change the direction the PCUSA has established and maintained since 1991 commissioners voted against a new sexual ethic, 1994 commissioners voted against the ReImagining God theology and the 1997 and 1998 presbytery votes that supported the denomination’s historic ordination standards.

The Presbyterian Layman March/April 1999

Home · Archives ·News History of the Lay Committee ·Feedback Online Reviews ·Resources ·Links