Assembly reins in staff’s selective use of policy statements By Parker T. Williamson The Presbyterian Layman Volume 33, Number 4 Posted August 4, 2000 LONG BEACH, Calif. – “I favor this overture, but not because I like it” said Tim Reynolds, a theological advisory delegate from Atlanta. “If this is what it takes to check a small group that thinks it knows more than the General Assembly does, then let’s do it.” Reynolds was speaking in support of a resolution adopted by the General Assembly that says its most recent action on an issue shall be the policy of the Presbyterian Church (USA). The resolution was brought to the Assembly by Presbyterians who discovered that some staff members at national church headquarters are misrepresenting General Assembly policies. Over the years, the General Assembly has made pronouncements on numerous social issues. On many occasions, the Assembly has amended positions expressed by previous Assemblies. But staff members of the Assembly Committee on Social Witness Policy have selectively interpreted Assembly actions, affirming on behalf of the denomination those policies with which they agree and ignoring those that they do not favor. Picking and choosing In 1983 the General Assembly declared a qualified pro-choice position on the subject of abortion. In 1992, the Assembly revisited that issue and affirmed that the pro-life position has moral validity. In 1999, a church in Donnegal Presbytery decided to study the abortion issue, and it requested a copy of the denomination’s policy from General Assembly headquarters. What the church received was a copy of the 1983 policy statement. Aware of the 1992 policy, Rev. Andrew Curtis expressed surprise at its absence. Curtis assumed that this was merely an oversight, so he pursued the matter with the Assembly Committee on Social Witness Policy. It was then that he learned the omission was intentional. The incident led Donnegal Presbytery to submit an overture to the General Assembly, and Curtis was dispatched to Long Beach to argue for its passage. “It is important that we know what the church’s policy is,” Curtis said to the Assembly committee. “We need to restore accountability. The General Assembly establishes policy, and we have to make sure that entities responsible for carrying it out are accountable.” Peter Sulyok, director of the Assembly Committee on Social Witness Policy, responded: “Our position is that we honor the work of all past General Assemblies.” Sulyok argued that his committee regards any decision of the General Assembly not as the policy of the church, but as a policy of the church. “But that is very confusing,” replied Curtis. “I don’t know of any situation in the business world where I could pick and choose among previous policies. The question always is, what is the current policy? All we are saying is that when the General Assembly votes, that is the policy until some succeeding General Assembly changes it.” A call for flexibility Dorothy Knudson, an elder from Eastern Oregon Presbytery, tried to rescue Sulyok. “I think we need to be flexible,” she said. “I read our Book of Confessions, and a lot of those confessions are not where my belief is.” Knudson said she appreciates the right to pick and choose what she wants to believe. Applying that principle to the issue at hand, Knudson affirmed the right of General Assembly staff to choose which portions of the denomination’s policies they believe are most appropriate at a particular time. “We are in a time of enormous change,” said another committee member. “And whenever this happens people yearn for clear, definitive language because they want to feel secure. But that’s what leads to fundamentalism, so I speak against this attempt to rigidly define what our policy is.” Sulyok’s supporters pressed the theme that Presbyterian Church policy should be treated as a smorgasbord – a collection of policies rather than a single, definitive policy – and that national staff members have the expertise to determine which version applies in specific circumstances. But the General Assembly was not convinced. Although it agreed to distribute previous policies on a subject for informational purposes, it declared that its most recent action shall be the church’s policy.

Respond to this article

Home · News · PLC Publications · The Presbyterian Layman Online Reviews · Archives · History of the Lay Committee · Feedback · Links