Commentary: ACSWP’s Desert Experience

GHOST RANCH, NEW MEXICO—Meeting in a high desert setting that overwhelms one with its wild, desolate views, the Advisory Committee on Social Witness Policy (ACSWP) sometimes overwhelmed one with its wild, desolate viewpoints. Holding its August 14–17 meeting approximately 60 miles into the wilderness from the jumping-off point of Santa Fe, the ACSWP was incorporating its new members, wrapping up business from the 2008 General Assembly, and wrapping its mind around the set of issues that it will deliver to the General Assembly in 2010.

New Faces Around the Table
Following any General Assembly, the rotation of elected members creates a new dynamic on many Presbyterian committees and boards. The ACSWP has lost some of its most experienced work horses and has gained three rookies, beginning this meeting. Added in as General Assembly Mission Council (GAMC) liaisons—but also full ACSWP members—are Mike Castronis, a pastor from Charleston, South Carolina, and Jean Demmler, an elder from Denver.

Ghost Ranch provides delightful sights that are human-made as well as created by God.

Both liaisons bring to the ACSWP growing knowledge of many facets of the denomination. Since the GAMC is reduced to only 40 members now, about half of which are rookies, these two veterans also carry some weight of authority and influence. Already at this meeting, Castronis evidenced a willingness to address his fellow ACSWP members with a certain sense of speaking for “the management,” gently urging the committee to scale back the work it takes on and to think realistically about staff limitations in a time of diminished income. Demmler brings fresh enthusiasm and the ability to ask a penetrating question in a diplomatic way.

Also new to the ACSWP is Christine Darden, an elder from Hampton, Virginia. At this early stage, Darden was busy acquiring the voluminous information anyone needs to get up to speed with the vast and varied work of the committee. Darden will be working on the Interpretation and Communication Subcommittee in particular.

With new members, the possibility arises for new and perhaps more varied perspectives. The ACSWP as a whole has long lacked conservative or evangelical voices. While conservatives compose about 41 percent of PCUSA membership and liberals can muster only about 19 percent, recently the ACSWP has had perhaps only one identifiable evangelical out of twelve members. And even that one theological conservative would be found at the liberal edge of evangelicalism, both politically and sociologically. However, now there are probably at least two evangelicals on the committee, making up about 17 percent of the ACSWP membership (less than half of their ratio in the church as a whole), and the vast majority of the remaining 83 percent of the committee appear to come from the 19 percent of the denomination that is liberal.

Trying to Finish 2008 Business
The ACSWP takes a lot of issues to any given General Assembly, and this year in June, multiple ACSWP items crowded the docket of more than one General Assembly committee. With a minor amendment here or there, much of what ACSWP wanted to accomplish made its way through General Assembly this year. Two items seemed to stick in the ACSWP craw, however: its Iraq resolution, which General Assembly did not approve, and an unfinished resolution on the nature of human life.

ACSWP meeting at Ghost Ranch. From left Lewis Mudge’s wife observing the meeting, co-chair Gloria Albrecht, co-chair Ron Kernaghan, Donna Bradley, Mike Castronis

The Iraq resolution was devised by the ACSWP apart from any request to do so (see here and here). The resolution’s scattershot pontification attempted to put the denomination in the role of military, political, and diplomatic expert, a responsibility that a roomful of overwhelmed commissioners in a hurry is hardly qualified to assume. Apparently the committee and later the entire General Assembly simply did not feel confident that approving the resolution would be prudent.

The ACSWP, however, had invested its power and interest in the resolution, written largely by staff coordinator Chris Iosso. Iosso wondered out loud if, even though the resolution was not approved by General Assembly, ACSWP should still make it widely available as a resource. (It would not be the first time that something not approved by General Assembly would have gotten reproduced and distributed anyway. The roundly defeated 1991 sexuality paper touting “justice love” to replace biblical morality still pops up in suggested reading lists put out by some denominational groups.) Iosso was ready to blame General Assembly committee leadership and commissioner misunderstanding for the resolution’s dismissal.

Committee co-chair, Ron Kernaghan, agreed about the General Assembly committee leadership’s culpability. “As the lead resource person [for this resolution], I was frustrated with what happened,” he began. “We were given one set of instructions by leadership, and without any advance warning, by fiat of the committee chair, we were just skipped.” Another somewhat similar resolution was approved instead.

“From my point of view, our hard work was scuttled by the committee chair,” Kernaghan concluded.

ACSWP unhappiness over this matter was serious enough that Chris Iosso’s suggested sending to the Office of the General Assembly a complaint about the committee leader. Later in the meeting, after more thought, the committee voted to have Ron Kernaghan and Gloria Albrecht meet personally with the Stated Clerk to “share concerns about the interface between resource persons and committee chairs at General Assembly.”

Another business item never made it to General Assembly this year, because the committee couldn’t decide on the form it should take prior to the Assembly. This item on the meaning and value of human life, first due in 2002, just keeps on not working out. Again, even at this meeting, the committee seemed stuck on the issue of how the study paper should be focused. At this rate, the paper may not make it to the 2010 General Assembly!

ACSWP member Lewis Mudge has put a lot of work into rewriting the paper, but some other ACSWP members seem to want to “hear from other voices” and also to include an analysis of power. These “other voices” appeared to be mostly on the far left,comprising various exponents of feminist and liberation theology. Mudge disagrees with opening Pandora’s Box by inviting in all kinds of outside voices. Who might you leave out if you start privileging some to be heard?

With red-rock cliffs in the background, the Advisory Committee on Social Witness Policy began its work for the 2010 General Assembly at Ghost Ranch in New Mexico August 14-17. Left to right: (front row) Donna Bradley, Mike Castronis, Belinda Curry (staff), Christine Darden, Gloria Albrecht, Esperanza Guajardo, Marsha Fowler, Bonnie Hoff (staff), and Chris Iosso (staff); (back) Bill Saint and Lewis Mudge. Attending the meeting but not in the photo: Ron Kernaghan, Jean Demmler, and Vernon Broyles (staff).

Member Bill Saint made a comment that was right on the mark but went nowhere. “If we’re trying to reflect a whole range of views,” he suggested, “we need to go past the middle and move to the more conservative area, even as we respond to the more radical critiques.” Yes! How necessary!

Whenever “listening to a range of voices” is advocated in ACSWP, that does not mean seeking the viewpoint of the bulk of the church: evangelicals and conservatives. ACSWP seems prepared to fawn over the most radical liberation theologian or post-Christian thinker before ever considering an evangelical scholar or just a plain old conservative believer. Conservatives are “not a voice around this table,” Saint noted, but that train of thought ground to a screeching halt right there for the committee.

It still remains unclear if more revisions by Mudge will fix the paper or if the committee will decide to take the whole paper a different direction with another writer. The choice for approach, however, seems to be between the paper being either rather progressive or industrial-strength radical. Stay tuned.

ACSWP’s New Business
Five new projects await ACSWP work during the next two years leading up to General Assembly in 2010. Before ACSWP starts forming study teams and writing papers, however, it first makes clear what it intends to accomplish by composing a prospectus for each project. At one point, coordinator Chris Iosso said something to the effect that “You wouldn’t want to write a twelve-page prospectus for a ten-page final report—well, maybe you might!” This shows that ACSWP takes seriously even its task of prospectus writing.

The materials for the possible prospectus for each issue are so tentative at this point that the committee does not want them published. However, the general topics for the resolutions that will occupy the next General Assembly are as follows:

• HIV/AIDS:General Assembly tasked the ACSWP with developing “a comprehensive study on HIV and AIDS for the PC(USA), recommending compassionate action and giving prophetic witness regarding issues related to people living with HIV and AIDS in the U.S.A. and around the world . . . .” The study will probably look at causative factors, such as racism and poverty. Issues such as homophobia, sex trafficking, and prophylactics may be addressed, and the U.S. is probably in for some scolding about alleged racism, sexism, and other failings. It appears that personal moral responsibility for homosexual or nonmarital sexual activities may get little attention.
• Public education: Resegregration and private schools (often Christian) seem to be the main kinds of topics for this study. Home schooling and charter schools may also make it into the mix. This would be the first time in over a quarter century that the PC(USA) has addressed the issue. The progressive assumption in the planning seems to be that public education is desirable and private or home schooling runs counter to the common good.
• Gun violence: This “comprehensive study” directed by General Assembly will likely look at such topics as Reformed theology on nonviolence, the costs of gun violence, the ways gun violence fits into our culture in particular, and ways to address the problem. The starting point for this study assumes that this country is uniquely troubled and indeed a cause for violence internationally, and that nonviolence is “a tactical method” for bringing peace domestically and internationally.
• Theology of compensation: The commission given the ACSWP is “to provide theological guidance to church and society with regard particularly to the impact of secular market assumptions on the compensation practices of the PC(USA).” This report —work that the ACSWP suggested the General Assembly to ask it to do—will look into what work is worth financially. It will likely examine the theological implications of paying people according to their worth in the open market or perhaps propose other ways to determine pay. “Secular market trends” concerning compensation appear to be frowned upon, and a focus on equity in pay could lead to a more socialized view of compensation.
• Immigrant detention: The General Assembly directed ACSWP to “analyze the social witness policy of the PC(USA) regarding detention in relation to immigration in the United States, giving attention to the experiences of women and children detained and affected.” The original overture wording would have directed the committee to “study and monitor detention,” but General Assembly amended it. However, Julia Thorne, a PC(USA) attorney who deals with immigration issues for the Office of General Assembly, suggested looking at the state of immigration detention centers and the changing legal strategies employed by both defense and prosecution attorneys. ACSWP appears willing to try to go both directions, so the study paper could possibly take a course different than that directed by the General Assembly. In addition, negative presuppositions about immigration enforcement could turn this study toward wholesale condemnation of immigration policies, rather than examining abuses of the policies.

The ACSWP is just getting rolling now with its new people and new tasks. Much is yet to be seen concerning just how it will handle its deliberations and responsibilities. Meeting at Ghost Ranch, in the middle of nowhere, the committee was beginning to decide to go somewhere. Where that “somewhere” ultimately takes the denomination bears close scrutiny.