But for Presbyterians involved with public issues, the office and its staff “remain an irreplaceable resource” in trying to work for a world that reflects the values of hope, mercy, justice and peace, according to a report submitted to the General Assembly Mission Council on Sept. 23. The office has provided resources to Presbyterian advocates seeking to influence legislation and public policy on a range of issues, from health care to immigration to the environment.
The council is receiving the report for information only; a vote on it is not expected.
The study group, led by Eileen Lindner, connectional presbyter of the Presbytery of the Palisades in New Jersey, reported its findings to the General Assembly Mission Council, meeting in Louisville Sept. 23-25. The council created the group to consider the role the Washington office plays and make suggestions about how it should approach its work.
“The rationale was that, as in a parish following a long pastoral tenure, a mission study provides an opportunity to recalibrate and reassess priorities and direction,” the report states. “Moreover, the Washington office had long been the subject of controversy of a variety of kinds, and a mission study would enable a review of Presbyterian perspectives on the ministry of public witness.”
The study team also convened a group of what it called “honest brokers” — a group of Presbyterian leaders gathered as a sounding board — to help shape its thinking and its report.
The report found that the Washington office has its share of critics, including some who say it leans too far towards liberal, Democratic political views.
“In the frequently polarizing political environment of contemporary America, sharp disputes about public policy are not uncommon,” the report states. “Standing as it does, at the forefront of these disputes, the Washington office often becomes a lightning rod for the political tensions which find expression within the church.”
When the review team invited comments from the public about the Washington office, “respondents who were highly critical were most likely to have little or no direct experience with the Washington office,” the report states, “in contrast to those who were most positive about the work of the office, who often reflected considerable direct experience with personnel in the office. Those who depend alone on press accounts of the office’s work were most highly critical of it.”
Some who complain of a liberal bias on the part of the Washington office staff acknowledge, the report states, that in taking those stands the office was representing positions on policy issues that the General Assembly had endorsed.
But some contend that the Washington office showed bias in selecting the issues on which it would focus, the report states. Or they “experience frustration that this perspective is not representative of the views of individual Presbyterians. A number of respondents suggest they are offended by or embarrassed by the stances of the office.”
And others want the office to do more, to speak more forcefully on an issue about which they have a particular passion.
Both ask, in effect, whether the office “can be said to speak for all Presbyterians,” according to the report.
But others affirm the ecumenical and interfaith work of the office and the study group characterized the Washington office as a “central and important instrument” through which Presbyterians reflect their faith on matters of public policy.
It also suggests that Presbyterian leaders could do more to build support for the Washington office by communicating the importance of its work to the church, and by having greater transparency and clarity about how the office selects the issues on which it will focus.
The continued criticism “erodes the authority and effectiveness” of the Washington office, the report states.
“The establishment of an advisory committee or other mechanism for setting priorities for staff activities might provide greater ownership for the focus of staff efforts.”
The council asked for the study in a time of transition, as it continues to study how scarce resources should be used in a denomination that’s trying to find more funding for world mission. The Washington office’s long-time director, Elenora Giddings Ivory, left in 2007 to take a position with the World Council of Churches. Earlier research has shown that many Presbyterians are not familiar with their denomination’s advocacy work in Washington and, consequently, didn’t consider it particularly important.
But a 1993 study on making social witness policy concluded that “the church, if it is to remain true to its Biblical roots, theological heritage, and contemporary practice, must not fall silent. It must speak faithfully, truthfully, persuasively, humbly, boldly, and urgently.”
The report reaches some “guiding principles” it suggests for the council to consider. Among them:
– That more attention be paid to “interpretation” of the work of the Washington Office — including looking at how issues are prioritized; how General Assembly pronouncements guide the office’s work; and how the office’s work meshes with public affairs advocacy from the PC(USA)’s stated clerk’s office.
– That Presbyterians “engage in the public square with ecumenical and interfaith partners wherever possible.”
– An advisory committee could be created to guide the Washington office staff in setting priorities for its work.
– Attention should be paid to comprehensive communications strategy for the office.
– The work of the PC(USA)’s Washington Office and United Nations Office should be integrated and coordinated, in part to ensure good stewardship of scarce resources.
– Whoever leads the denomination’s public witness should be “a culturally sensitive person of theological integrity” and committed to accountability.
