The recent resignation of the director of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.)’s Washington Office begs us to consider how that office should operate.
Some say it ought to close. Wrong answer. Many feel disgruntled over the kinds of efforts exerted there. However, to pull out of the nation’s capital would send a signal about church-state relations that does not match our longstanding convictions. God calls us to provide a conscience to the nation, to utter the oft-unpopular prophetic word, to “speak truth to power.” God calls us to lead leaders.
Some say we ought to proceed ahead as we have before. Wrong answer, too. Many applaud the office’s efforts to broadcast faithful positions to the nation. But, we must ask some hard questions.
Have we been effective at promoting real change? Or, has predictability and a narrow focus diminished our clout?
Have we adapted our modi operandi to the rapidly-changing context — where the political climate changes like the barometric pressure?
Are we utilizing 21st century communications media or are we stuck in the 1960s?
At least a few things do need to change in order to help our nation promote justice, morality, and mercy in the 21st century.
First, the national office must speak to two audiences: the national and the denominational. Clearly the office has aimed to influence legislators, but it has disregarded the huge numbers of local Presbyterians who have opposed its every word. Our witness has showcased our double-mindedness more than it has shaped national policy.
The research of Louis Weeks, published twice through the years in the Outlook, maps that double-mindedness. Weeks claims that, in general, “governing body Presbyterians” think and act like the national Democratic Party while “local church Presbyterians” think and act like the national Republican Party.
Has the national church committed to a position on a matter? Then let the Advisory Committee on Social Witness Policy, or on Racial-Ethnic Policy, or on Women’s Concerns, etc., publish interpretive study papers and circulate them widely — not only to the already persuaded, but to the whole church so that the whole church can become informed and even swayed by them.
Does the Washington Office or the Stated Clerk feel compelled to publish a position paper? Then let them share the concerns with the whole church, utilizing all available media (much of it inexpensive). Yes, folks in the pews wonder if the denominational powers really care what they think, and the time has come for them to hear a resounding “Your opinion matters!” Ultimately, the broader counsel gained by such open dialogue within this church family can sharpen and strengthen the influence exercised in the nation’s capital.
What about that other audience, the lawmakers? Have our prophetic words persuaded legislators on both sides of the aisle to change their votes? Face it: pronouncements get read; more than that, polls get analyzed. But the biggest influence is the counsel of friends, especially wise friends.
As for those national policy positions, it behooves us to ask our ACSWP to re-examine older policies, to present those reviews along with recommendations to amend and improve them, and to ask General Assembly commissioners to add their endorsements to such recommendations.
It also behooves those commissioners to require a supermajority, at least 60% or maybe even 2/3rds, to approve such policy positions in order to minimize the backlash that arises back home from those stunned to hear their church advocating positions contrary to their sincerely held convictions. It also would reflect the pursuit of discernment and consensus building that is being promoted in the church’s governance.
Word has it that Louisville’s senior staff leaders are taking time to reflect on the approaches to be pursued in building a productive future for our Washington office. We urge them to do what churches are required by presbyteries to do at times of transition, namely, to prepare a mission study, to assess the strengths and shortcomings of their past practices, to look for new, innovative, dynamic approaches to carrying forward the mission entrusted to them, and to ensure that the future efforts of that office will be faithful and effective.
— JHH
