The Presbyterian Church and its

The Presbyterian Church
and its call to do justice

The Editor’s Spot

Is it time to find new ways to live out our Reformed commitment to justice?

by Doug King
[9-29-09]

My wife and I have been moving again, a process which gives rise to thoughts about change, along with all the chaos and confusion and not being able to find anything – either in our house or, often enough, in our new neighborhood. So bear with me, friends, for a little reflection on change and the challenge of living in the midst of mess.

The Witherspoon Society and Voices of Sophia are going through an exciting process of change as we merge two groups with strong commitments to a more just and inclusive church, working for a more just and inclusive society.

That is, we’re certain, a good change, but it brings with it some costs – one of them being the need to pause a bit an sort out our differing styles and ways of working. And another cost is sorting out our financial situation, which right now is a matter of some concern. That is a major reason why our Board has decided that the next two issues of Network News will not be published in “hard copy” printed form, but will come to you only in this electronic form. We hope the PDF format will be easy for you to print out for yourself, though, to read at your leisure and to share with others.

Change is going on in our Presbyterian Church, too – not in the form of any new mergers like ours, but rather in the form of new assaults on our church’s historic commitment to engagement with political and social issues, in our neighborhoods and around the world.

Some of our members who attended the Churchwide Gathering of Presbyterian Women in Louisville last July, noticed that as they talked with people there about the coming merger of Voices of Sophia and Witherspoon, some were simply puzzled that a church group would talk about “justice” as its primary concern. For all their commitment to the Presbyterian Church, they had simply never seen that as a major focus of the life of faith.

And just before that, at the Big Tent Gathering of various Presbyterian agencies in Atlanta, people were startled to hear the Rev. Robert W. Bohl, Moderator of the 206th General Assembly in 1994, and former pastor of Village Presbyterian Church, Prairie Village, Kansas, assure his evangelical friends that they could feel safe coming back to the PC(USA) again, since the liberal elements and activities that they have found so distressing are now under control.

It also became clear in that meeting that the agencies of the church which are most directly involved in social ministries, the various groups belonging to PHEWA, the Presbyterian Health, Education and Welfare Association, were also under attack, as it was announced that the executive director of PHEWA, the Rev. Nancy Troy, was one of the latest staff people being dismissed by the simple measure of eliminating her position.

In the midst of all these challenges to the church’s social ministry, there are strong voices being raised to call for a continued commitment to justice. The Rev. Dr. Johnnie Monroe, on receiving the PHEWA award during their meeting in the Big Tent gathering, delivered an impassioned affirmation of that commitment, rooted in his own faith and experience as an African-American. As a young person, he knew the Presbyterian Church “stood for truth and light and justice. They reminded us that we were the salt of the earth and the light of the world.” But now, he said, “something has happened to this Bible-believing, justice-seeking denomination. ... Instead of making the world look like us, we have begun to look like the world. What I see is a church that is looking more like a corporation than Jesus Christ. We balance the budget on the backs of those who can least afford it.” (Click here for Dr. Monroe's comments.)

And the Rev. Dr. Margaret Aymer, who is assistant professor of New Testament at the Interdenominational Theological Center, and serves on the PC(USA)’s Facing Racism Strategy Team, preached a strongly biblical sermon at the All-Church Gathering, calling on Presbyterian Women to follow Jesus’ example in a ministry of “meddlin’” (as in “now you’ve gone from preachin’ to meddlin’ ”) – that is, going from mere talk into action for change, welcoming the outcaste, and much more. (Click here for her sermon.)

We are happy to provide the full texts of both of these statements here. We hope you’ll find them helpful and encouraging for your own thinking, and for sharing with your friends, as we all face what appears to be a strong effort to undermine our church’s commitment to follow Jesus in ministering to a hurting (and often unfair) world.

How might we respond creatively to the continuing efforts to undermine the Presbyterian Church’s social ministry? Find new, creative ways to talk about justice – not as an end in itself, but as a reflection of love and compassion and respect for God’s creatures, in the face of myriad ways that social and political and economic (maybe especially economic!) structures hurt people.

And let’s be aware that the Church is a structure which can easily do just the same thing – as we are seeing now in the most recent efforts by some in the leadership of the General Assembly Mission Council to revise the employee handbook that governs their staff. Apparently the intent is to make it easier to dismiss employees with no reasons needing to be given, and leaving little recourse for the employees to protest or seek redress.

For more on this, see the PC(USA) website for the proposed changes in the GAMC employee handbook .

There is also a brief but very helpful response from the Advocacy Committee for Racial Ethnic Concerns, the Advocacy Committee for Women’s Concerns, and the Advisory Committee on Social Witness Policy. We urge you to read this, too.

Given such apparent dismissal of a vital part of the Reformed tradition, what can we say? What can we do?

Here are a few very tentative thoughts:

Let’s acknowledge that life is messy – and so is the church. It’s a mess that God loves, but it’s still a mess, and while many of us progressive sorts want to look on the hopeful side of things, we need a bit of realism, too. We need to recognize that small steps forward are being taken, and celebrate those steps toward justice and inclusion. But we also need to be aware that many of our fellow Presbyterians are fearful of change, determined to preserve what they perceive as the “purity” that God demands – whether that purity is understood in terms of sexual relationships, or beliefs, or race or culture or politics.

And then let’s recognize that calling for “justice” may be so abstract that it is really not inviting to many of our sister and brother Presbyterians, just as it is unattractive to many Americans today.

So how can we invite others to join us in answering God’s call to “do justice, love mercy, and walk humbly with our God”? What many of us really have in mind, as we try to work for justice, is much more concrete and human than it may sound. We see people who are being hurt, and our hearts are touched by their suffering, and often by their strength and goodness in dealing with the pain. We see the suffering, and we know that a loving God yearns for healing of the pain, for changes in the social systems that inflict it and the human attitudes that justify it.

Call it love. Call it compassion. Call it resisting society’s (or the church’s) inhuman treatment of human beings. It’s not merely interest in a moral abstraction called Justice. It’s caring about people who are God’s beloved children, and our own sisters and brothers.

That’s our calling. Let’s invite others to join us in caring – even in the Presbyterian Church (USA).

Doug King

Different ways of looking at change
[10-5-09]

On Sept. 29 we posted a short essay by your WebWeaver (that’s me) about some of the changes going on these days in our church and our society – and some of the different ways we seem to be dealing with them.

I focused partly on what seems to be the increasing pressure in our denomination, especially at the national level, to reduce our programs and staff in the areas of social ministries and justice concerns.

The essay stimulated two vigorous responses from our friends on the right side of the Presbyterian Church. Vigorous, but rather different in tone and style.

The first one came from the Rev. James Berkley, until recently the Director of Presbyterian Action, a part of the Institute on Religion and Democracy (IRD), and a frequent writer for the Presbyterian Layman.

He summarizes my thoughts thus:

I find out from Doug King that his side of the Presbyterian world is feeling a little put-upon by change. Having received for years a disproportionate share of the spoils, now maybe that transfer of power, influence, and funds is drying up a little? Just maybe those of liberal persuasion will need to live more within what they contribute, rather than what all of us contribute but they use? Maybe the insider access to funding and positions and power just may shift a little, so that this small minority of the denomination (a fifth or fewer?) has funding and power and access more proportional to their numbers? King points out what many of us would call only fair.

He concludes by asking:

When will Doug King and others in his camp ever be able to attribute noble—if different—motivations to those whose Christian discernment lands in a different place than theirs? All their ideological opponents—in their eyes—must be bad people with venal motives, such as fear, obtuseness, power-madness, or racism. Not so! It is simply not so, Doug King.

For the full letter from James Berkley >>

A fair point, and if I implied assumptions about the motives of others in the church, I apologize. But to point to the dynamics of fear in our current struggles, it seems to me (having acknowledged my own anxieties on moving into a new place), seems to be legitimate.

But I would like to do just what James Berkley wants: to note with appreciation the character shown in a second note we’ve received – this one from the Rev. Robert G. Campbell, pastor of Tully Memorial Presbyterian Church in Sharon Hill, PA.

He begins by noting the common ground between us:

He’s clear about differences between the conservative and progressive sides of the church on issues such as abortion, but urges us all to work together where we can common ground. And then he offers a point worth serious attention from all of us:

Finally, getting GA funding for one’s projects, while helpful, rarely trickles down to justice in communities or to the local church. If we want real racial justice in the PCUSA we have to work together at the local level.

The full note from Robert Campbell >>

So ... two very different responses, both critical, both making clear their differences from my little essay. But my, how different in tone.

Doug King

If you’d like to offer your own comments,
we’ll be glad to hear from you.
Just send a note,
to be shared here.

“ 'Fearful of change' is such a put-down!"

From James Berkley, Oct. 2, 2009
[10-5-09]

Editor:

Thank you for providing the Witherspoon Society article by Doug King. I always benefit from reading material in Witherspoon publications, because it reconfirms for me what I do NOT believe. It amazes me that they can see any particular occurrence or issue in exactly the mirror image of how so many of us do.

I read that two diminishing liberal groups have merged and have found that difficult: Voices of Sophia and the Witherspoon Society. Actually, I would expect it to be difficult for any group of Presbyterians, no matter how far left, to join forces with heresy and idolatry. Merging with Voices of Sophia shouldn’t be simple. They operate mainly outside the bounds of Christian orthodoxy—as even a not-particularly-conservative General Assembly determined. And money is tight for everyone. The Witherspoon financial woes are being experienced by congregations and organizations across the board.

But when I got to this section, I found real prejudice on Doug King’s part: “But we also need to be aware that many of our fellow Presbyterians are fearful of change, determined to preserve what they perceive as the ‘purity’ that God demands--whether that purity is understood in terms of sexual relationships, or beliefs, or race or culture or politics.”

What a way to write off his ideological opponents in an inaccurate and uncharitable way! But how characteristic! King and others just will not let go of the descriptor fear to characterize their opponents, even after personal requests to be more truthful and accurate.

“Fearful of change” is such a put-down! Could it not be that others can do just fine with change per se, but would want to forestall harmful change? Would Doug King himself like to be characterized as “fearful of change” if the change being talked about were some draconian return to feudalism? It is not change in itself that people oppose; it is specific, harmful change that they are against, just as King would most likely fight valiantly against changing back to feudalism. I would again encourage King to have the decency not to swipe at his foes with the spurious charge of a blanket fear of change.

Then King puts air quotes around the word purity, in “the ‘purity’ that God demands.” Again, that purposefully demeans the convictions of those who happen to believe differently than King. He must think that the purity they seek must not be real purity and therefore must be set off in disparaging quotation marks. Preserving purity would be expected to be a good thing, so King has to demean the activity by making it a faux “purity” that people want to preserve out of alleged fear.

But King gets most egregious when he lumps together two extremely different concepts: preserving sexual or doctrinal purity on the one hand, and preserving racial purity on another. So, if I read this correctly, King thinks it BAD to be for sexual purity and God-delivered belief? Should we be for impurity and all forms of heresy? Is that what Witherspoon Society wants? Well, I just need to look at their main lobbying efforts—for sexual impurity and for theological heterodoxy—and I guess I get my answer. In fact, it is so very bad to want sexual purity and theological orthodoxy that King needs to compare it to the most extreme racism that wants to keep races pure from intermingling. King is “guilting” by association: The messed up people who want Christian sexual morality and theological truth also want racism, according to King. They’re all the same, according to him, linked by fear and some form of apparently damnable purity.

When will Doug King and others in his camp ever be able to attribute noble—if different—motivations to those whose Christian discernment lands in a different place than theirs? All their ideological opponents—in their eyes—must be bad people with venal motives, such as fear, obtuseness, power-madness, or racism. Not so! It is simply not so, Doug King.

James D. Berkley
Seattle, WA

"I think you would find that there are many Evangelicals also committed to justice."

From Robert Campbell, Oct 3, 2009
[10-5-09]

Doug –

I think you would find that there are many Evangelicals also committed to justice. One of the problems I think we have is that we don’t all agree on how justice in a particular situation might best be achieved. An example: I believe that there must be healthcare for all, including undocumented aliens. But I am not convinced that the public option originally proposed by President Obama and some Democrats in Congress is (actually I think it is now was) the best way of going about it. I wish the Republicans and Democrats would quit their posturing and do some creative thinking together. There are good proposals on both sides that if combined might make healthcare for all an achievable and cost effective reality.

There are areas in which we disagree but in which we might work together. I’m going to go on believing abortion is sin. You probably disagree with me. But we can work together to make sure that abortion happens as infrequently as possible and to make sure that women have real choices. It is my experience that many women choose abortion because they believe they have no other option. But healthcare both before and after the baby is born, financial support after a child is born, decent child care and job training might make it possible for women to have a real choice. And we can work together on some things that are coming down the pike like opposing abortion in cases where the parents want a child of the other sex.

On another subject we need to start working on now is to insist that human clones be given all the rights and freedoms of non clone human beings. This is coming and the Church needs to get ahead of the curve.

My training tells me that if we can work at conflicts while they are still at level 1 (Alban Institute scale) then we can come to creative solutions. Maybe if we put aside the big name issues for a while and work on things we agree must happen but don’t agree on how they should happen we can find some solutions.

Yours in Christ

Robert Campbell
Pastor
Tully Memorial Presbyterian Church
Sharon Hill, PA