I would prefer to begin this essay by saying that I am concerned, or that I am frustrated. But, honesty demands that I confess that I am angry.  What angers me is the Advocacy Committee for Women’s Concerns (ACWC), and the way in which it disingenuously distorted matters of basic fairness at the recent General Assembly.

Specifically, I am upset that the elected members of ACWC – whose nominations to this position ostensibly represent the broad membership of our church and who are charged with promoting the concerns of all women – are, in fact, overwhelmingly biased in favor of radical theological and political outcomes.

There were a number of controversial issues before this most recent General Assembly.  Two of the more controversial had to do with removing or retaining our ordination standard of fidelity and chastity, and redefining the meaning of marriage.  Everyone knows that the church is significantly divided on both of these issues.  As an aside, the findings of the Presbyterian Panel indicate that a majority of Presbyterians favor maintaining our current position on both.  But it is nevertheless fair to say that the church is not of one mind on these matters.  For example, in a highly unusual step, the General Assembly sent both the majority and minority reports of its Civil Union and Marriage Committee to the church for its study and consideration.   

However, the advice of ACWC was thoroughly one-sided.  I’ll come back to this issue in a bit, but for the moment let me tell you a little more about ACWC. 

ACWC is one of three (extra-constitutional) “advocacy or advisory” committees established by the Manual of the General Assembly and paid for by the church’s per-capita assessment.  The members of these three committees are nominated by the General Assembly Nominating Committee (GANC) and elected by the General Assembly.  Each of them – including the GANC – has specific responsibilities.  For example, the work of the GANC is to “reflect the inclusive policies of the General Assembly” (G-13.0111a).  In general, the three committees are to produce advice and counsel memoranda that provide commissioners with information “about existing policy, current work on specific topics, recent developments, and other factors useful to commissioners as they consider issues before the assembly.” In particular, ACWC is to assist the GA in giving “full expression of the rich diversity of its membership as specified in the Book of Order, G-4.0403. The committee shall monitor and evaluate policies, procedures, programs, and resources regarding the way in which they impact the status and position of women in the church and the world; and shall advocate for full inclusiveness and equity in all areas of the life and work of the church in society as a whole.”  In order to do their work, the three committees are given unhindered access to the commissioners; their “advice and counsel” papers are distributed along with other officially generated GA papers; and they are only minimally accountable to the General Assembly that gave them birth.

Now, back to my main point.  In giving their “advice and counsel” on the two issues mentioned above, ACWC made absolutely no attempt whatsoever to unfold the complex and thorny problems associated with each.  Nor did they attempt to state their concerns in biblical and theological terms.  For the most part, they simply expressed their tired (and somewhat anachronistic) ideology that traditional marriage is a patriarchal relic that should be discarded[i], and that traditional interpretations of biblical passages dealing with homosexuality are outdated and worn. [ii]

I contend, however, that if the members of ACWC were actually representative of the women of the church, their “advice and counsel” would have been far more nuanced and far less ideological.  It would have acknowledged that these issues are knotty and are not subject to easy answers. Most importantly, it would have reflected the concerns of orthodox as well as radically liberal women.

Interestingly, a Commissioners’ Resolution was submitted to the Assembly that attempted to rectify some of this imbalance.  It argued that “our present system of nominations lacks a ready means to populate permanent committees … with persons whose theological positions accurately reflect the spectrum of beliefs within the denomination as a whole.  As a result, true theological diversity is sorely lacking in many places, especially the diversity of ‘theological positions consistent with the Reformed Tradition’ that is mandated in the Form of Government (G-4.0403).”  To solve this problem, the Resolution suggested that the GANC add questions to its nomination form (both multiple choice and narrative) that would allow potential nominees to self-identify themselves theologically.

Notwithstanding the fact that the Advisory Committee on the Constitution found the Commissioners’ Resolution to be entirely constitutional, the ACWC reacted swiftly and energetically to its proposals, advising the committee to which it was assigned that the Resolution should be disapproved.  ACWC’s  main argument against the Resolution was that “diversity of theological perspectives is already sought in the pools of candidates” considered by GANC, and that it (i.e. diversity) is achieved by GANC by “evaluating the narrative responses on the applications and in conversations with candidates.” 

In other words, ACWC wanted the status to remain quo so that it could continue to use per-capita funds received from all Presbyterians to advance its slanted and imbalanced ideology.  And, it got its way.  The Resolution was disapproved.   

We are the ones who are funding this kind of unfair nonsense every time we pay our per capita apportionment.  On the one hand, I recognize that by virtue of our membership vows we have each entered into a covenant to support the life and work of the church. But does that covenant require of us that we also enter into an ecclesiastical suicide pact in which, for lack of fair representation, we are required to contribute to the destruction of our most deeply held biblical and confessional convictions?  What do you think?