Commentary: ACSWP Swamps General Assembly with Papers

LOUISVILLE—Papers for General Assembly. The Advisory Committee on Social Witness Policy writes papers. Lots of them. Too many of them.

By February 22, every report from a Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) General Assembly entity is required to be finished and submitted to the Office of the General Assembly. Among the papers to be submitted are information reports from various parties, which are somewhat like a church committee’s annual report. A response to referral is the way an entity reports on what it did concerning business referred to it by a prior assembly. Entities also submit another kind of paper simply called a report, which is their way to introduce a business item to General Assembly. Other ways exist to add to the paper burden of the ordinary commissioner, but these are the most common.

Although the Advisory Committee on Social Witness Policy (ACSWP) is still chewing on a number of items, its meeting January 24–27 in Louisville was filled with final and nearly final touches on several reports it will place before General Assembly in June for approval. The meeting was rather scattershot, since there were nine papers, and some were considered in part or in whole several times over the four days. It felt at times like “The Night of the Living Dead Papers,” with projects that just kept coming back to life for a little more action.

Even at that, few of the papers were finished-finished. Most were almost-finished, and some remained not-at-all-finished. Evidently later drafts of those papers are circulating yet by e-mail among committee members.

The committee talked of a conference call close to February 22 to finally approve the remaining papers undergoing makeovers. But when the chair suggested setting the actual date and time, ACSWP Coordinator Chris Iosso cut the discussion short with a “Let’s have the Coordinating Committee look at that.” It seemed logical to set a date with the members present, but perhaps it wasn’t desirable to set a phone date with this observer listening in. It is next to impossible to scrutinize the business of the church being conducted in a flurry of e-mails or during a conference call at an unannounced time. Some ACSWP members do prefer doing business that way, however.

So what will General Assembly commissioners see in June, and what will the press latch on to and publicize from San Jose to complicate your lives? Here is a glimpse for those not at the ACSWP meeting. Sometime between March and May, the final drafts of the papers ought to be available for examination on the General Assembly web site. These comments will necessarily be brief and without specific quotations, since the ACSWP thinks its drafts that were discussed at a public meeting are still confidential. We need to remember, too, that the following comments are based on drafts that may change again prior to eventual publication.

A Social Creed for the 21^st Century: The National Council of Churches’ document, “A Social Creed for the 21^st Century” is intended to celebrate the centennial of the 1908 Social Creed of the Churchesand update its liberal social witness in a number of ways for the modern era. The ACSWP has taken the lead in developing the Social Creed through the National Council of Churches, and now the PCUSA gets the opportunity to vote on this descendant of the social gospel movement.

• General stance:The Social Creed is generally statist and utopian. Most of its answers for what ails society involve government providing the solution. No objective sought by the creed differs substantially from a plank in a liberal political party’s platform.
• Areas of concern: The Social Creed wraps awkwardly around a Trinitarian framework, but the religious façade comes across as contrived and shallow. Personal initiative and even church ministries seem to be generally swept aside by big government hand-outs and guarantees. Little thought, it seems, was given to who would bear the staggering costs of some of the naively grandiose goals. The creed ought to please those who think the church’s primary task is to hound the government into embracing socialism.

Pay Equity and Just Compensation: This paper takes on “the pay disparity that exists based on gender and race/ethnicity,” both in the church and in the world. It seeks just compensation for all women.

• General stance: It believes that “equal pay for jobs of comparable worth” is not happening and needs to be moved along. Full reporting is a start, and moral suasion would result if bad conclusions show up in the compensation data. The recommendations also advocate for increased federal responsibility to provide universal health care and “family-supporting wages for all workers.”
• Areas of concern: While the cause is good and further action remains necessary, the recommendations become increasingly “big-brotherish,” mandating complicated reporting and hectoring congregations that someone else might deem inadequately compliant.

Human Rights in Colombia: Where once a Human Rights Update surveyed instances of abuses around the world, for the last two General Assemblies, ACSWP has focused on a particular problem country. In 2006 the United States was deemed the hotbed of human-rights abuse. In 2008, Colombia becomes the subject of a resolution of solidarity with the dispossessed in that country.

• General stance: The resolution calls for consciousness raising, political advocacy, and a number of social and political steps to aid and stand alongside vulnerable and threatened Colombian citizens. It also encourages further promotion of the Accompaniment Program that places Presbyterians beside political activists who fear reprisals.
• Areas of concern: Apparently Presbyterian concern remains social, economic, and political, because the resolution says nothing of preaching the gospel, seeking changed hearts, nurturing disciples, planting churches, or witnessing to the Kingdom of God. The resolution does manage to spread political advice to Congress and the United Nations, however.

Homelessness: The ubiquitous problem of homelessness gets addressed widely by Presbyterian churches across the country through shelters, transitional housing, feeding programs, and blankets and coats distributed on Skid Row. This paper looks broadly at the causes, direct action to break the cycle of homelessness, and political advocacy.

• General stance: Five pages of action items include over 50 detailed action recommendations. The resolution seeks to move beyond handouts to find and change root causes. It seeks affordable housing and sustainable communities. It advocates a universal right to decent, affordable, safe, and permanent housing.
• Areas of concern: The sheer volume of must-do’s could make homeless ministry the central and perhaps only business of every church. The recommendations would expand government, reengineer taxes, and commandeer most church resources for this one worthy but perhaps not all-consuming focus of ministry. The link between homelessness and mental health seems to be underemphasized.

Voting Rights and Electoral Reform: In 2004, the General Assembly set in motion the writing of a statement “recommending new measures to prevent voter disenfranchisement in the United States.” “Lift Every Voice” is that statement. It seeks to increase voter participation, election fairness, and Presbyterian activism toward those ends.

• General stance: Considering voter rights imperiled and voter fraud likely, the resolution directs the usual social-justice apparatus to lobby government and urge all Presbyterians to attend to this matter. Its solutions are far-reaching, including giving felons a vote, changing primary dates, tasking presbyteries and synods with monitoring election laws, and suggesting complicated “ranked-choice voting measures.”
• Areas of concern: The resolution creates a massive new field of social responsibility for individuals, churches, presbyteries, and synods. It also cleverly supplies ACSWP with new things to do to keep it busy and to justify its existence. Certainly insuring fair voting opportunities is a civic political responsibility, and Christians as citizens need to be vigilant to end fraud and disenfranchisement. But must the political task become a major new church enterprise?

U.S. energy policy and global warming: With a voice of foreboding, the paper paints a dour, Ecclesiastes-like picture about power “under the sun” and a rosy promise of solar power using the sun. Its recommendations begin with a call for nonspecific confession—perhaps for existing in a time of material progress?—and for guidance. Then it provides about three dozen things to do, including support for nearly a dozen legislative fixes.

• General stance: The paper and resolutions, well-meaning in intent, assume as given a human cause as primary for whatever global warming may exist. Train of thought then shuttles about to come up with numerous ways to remove essential sources of the energy we consume, while applying a government-knows-best and international-governing-entities-are-even-better mindset.
• Areas of concern: The resolution calls for draconian “solutions” that would still be insufficient to solve the global-warming problem but would greatly injure developed countries while condemning poorer peoples to permanent underdevelopment. It writes off scientific voices skeptical of the accepted dogma of human-caused global warming, while placing the church in league with those who consider humankind a dangerous blemish on the face of the earth.

Serious Mental Illness: The idea in a 1999 referral from General Assembly was to develop a comprehensive policy on serious mental illness, including justice issues, domestic violence, and full incorporation in the church. The paper looks at the experience of such maladies as schizophrenia, major depression, and bipolar disorder. It hopes to provide solutions, both for ministry with individuals and for civic and church legislation.

• General stance: The paper takes a compassionate and comprehensive stance. It also liberally dishes out multiple responsibilities to many responsible parties to devote added attention, education, and funds to mental illness.
• Areas of concern: One wonders how the churches newly giving their all to do what the homeless report requires will be able also to give their all to ending serious mental illness. Congregations are urged to take on 23 tasks, and the Washington Office gets 6 types of new federal legislation to push. Pastors would be required to take continuing education units on serious mental illness. The stress of serious new mental-illness ministry responsibilities could produce more mental illness!

New Orleans and Hurricane Katrina: The Advocacy Committee on Racial Ethnic Concerns teamed with ACSWC on this resolution about the state of affairs following the devastation of Hurricane Katrina. The hope is to make New Orleans a model for ways that many urban wrongs can be righted.

• General stance: “Structural racism,” believed to be at the core of our society, is the major concern of the paper, which frames the response to Katrina in terms of race, gender, and class. “Abandonment” is the key descriptor for what happened, and the call is for more government responsibility to respond and to correct systemic ills of widespread injustice.
• Areas of concern: There is an enormous expectation that if something goes wrong, government must make it right. Much was wrong with New Orleans before Hurricane Katrina and apart from alleged federal mistakes, so the mixing of recovery and rectifying past inequities complicates the scattered and far-reaching response.

Lessons of the Iraq war: ACSWP apparently feels compelled to say something about Iraq, perhaps its form of “I told you so” about the difficulties being experienced in that troubled country. Two papers were discussed at the meeting, but neither was finalized. A previous Presbyterian Action article[ http://www.theird.org/NETCOMMUNITY/Page.aspx?pid=549&srcid=549 ] chronicled the state of the report.

• General stance: ACSWP is opposed to the war and is seeking withdrawal of American forces and greater involvement by the United Nations. The articles do not hand out credit for any American accomplishments, but instead consider U.S. actions illegal and immoral.
• Areas of concern: Anyone who feels the United States military is being steadfast and heroic rather than despotic and criminal will not appreciate the resolution. While all Presbyterians have a legitimate concern for peace and well-being, they differ greatly on the best means to achieve justice and security for ourselves and others we would seek to protect. These papers assume horrendous intent on America’s part, and match it with horrendous recommendations on their own part.

More Than We Know How to Do
Because the ACSWP reports are many, this account is forced to run long. The sheer number of reports about such varied and difficult subjects means that commissioners will have insufficient time or energy to do justice to any of the reports. Typically, such reports get raised. Enthusiasts say that we must approve what is being put before General Assembly. A few scattered commissioners raise their inchoate doubts. And then the assembly as a whole basically goes along to get along.

Another set of approved social witness resolutions would mean that Presbyterians would have that many more comprehensive plans in place to tell other institutions what they ought to do about situations in which the other folks have far greater familiarity and expertise. But that doesn’t keep a few Presbyterians from proposing overambitious and underconsidered resolutions that they can get enough other Presbyterians to approve offhandedly.

Then everybody pretty much forgets about the ruckus, except for the ACSWP, which has likely figured ways to propose and fund several further pet projects for its committee. The Washington Office also pulls in a lot of issues for which it can lobby. That leaves the common congregation stuck with the bill to pay for all these studies and papers. The average congregation also finds itself in the unenviable position of having to explain just why it is that General Assemblies approve such outlandish or frustrating pronouncements in the first place.

While the congregations are mopping up from the last wave of Presbyterian-credibility damage, the ACSWP is busy at work producing the next wave of pronouncements about everything from soup to nuts. The cycle will continue like that until General Assembly finally puts its foot down to disapprove resolutions, and pulls the plug on further ACSWP funding. Then some balance, restraint, and simple prudence might return to the social-witness enterprise.