Lobby Office or Equipper of the Saints? Time for You to Weigh In

The following originally appeared in a recent Presbyterian Action Weekly e-newsletter. If you would like to receive our weekly e-newsletter, register as an IRD User today.

 

The Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), at the direction of its General Assembly Mission Council (GAMC), is engaged in a study of the mission of its Washington Office. We in Presbyterian Action have welcomed this study as long overdue, and a wise step to take before the selection of a new Washington Office director.

Before hiring someone new to pursue the same old mission, it is well to ask: What do Presbyterians really want their Washington Office to do? Do they want it to continue to function principally as a lobby office, speaking in their name to the political branches of the U.S. government? Do they want it to promote just one perspective—the supposed “Presbyterian position”—on every issue? Or do they want the Washington Office to help the members of the church to make their own diverse political witness?

In many other respects, there seems to be an ongoing reformation of how the GAMC agencies understand their work. Previously, they had seen themselves as doing mission on behalf of local church members. Now, increasingly, the agencies see themselves as equipping the local church members to do the mission themselves. But this shift of perspective does not yet seem to have touched the Washington Office. It still does a lot more speaking in the name of Presbyterians.

I raised these concerns in an e-newsletter last year that was later published in IRD’s Faith & Freedom. Now the study process has advanced with the issuance of a provisional mission statement and proposed guiding principles for the Washington Office. The GAMC is asking Presbyterians to respond by filling out a survey on the mission statement and guiding principles. That invitation is open to you!

As I look at these recently released documents, I would offer several observations for your consideration:

1. The provisional mission statement starts in the right place. It sets forth as the first priority of the Washington Office “witnessing to the sovereignty of God and the grace of Christ.” If the office took this priority to heart—speaking theologically more than politically, stressing always the divine message of the Gospel and the Scriptures above all human judgments about particular issues—that would be a truly refreshing change.
2. The mission statement leaves huge unanswered questions with its third priority of “Speaking truth in love to power among our national leaders.” For example: How does the Washington Office know the truth that it is to speak? Does the truth that the church proclaims come from “Scripture alone,” as the Reformers declared? Or does it come from the personal political convictions of church leaders?
3. It is discouraging that “Helping Presbyterians respond to God’s call to witness” is relegated to last on the proposed list of Washington Office priorities.
4. The guiding principles exalt the Washington Office as “a central and important instrument through which Presbyterians make their witness of faith on matters of public affairs.” This sounds unfortunately like more of the same: speaking in the name of Presbyterians rather than helping them to speak in their own voices. These proposed principles have it backwards: The central actors in our Presbyterian political witness should be the church members, not the Washington Office.
5. The principles concede that “the Washington Office is not the only means for Presbyterian public witness,” but they do not seem terribly interested in encouraging other means besides this lobbying operation. The office, they assert, offers “a unique ministry in communicating the perspectives of the PC(USA).” But if it’s just the Washington Office talking and PCUSA members have little involvement, how will the politicians know that the message is really “the perspectives of the PC(USA)”?
6. The principles affirm cooperation “with ecumenical and interfaith partners whenever possible.” But who are these ecumenical partners? Are they just the usual liberal Protestant suspects—the United Methodists, United Church of Christ, National Council of Churches—that share offices in the same Capitol Hill building with our PCUSA Washingon Office? Or are we talking about real ecumenism that includes Roman Catholics, conservative evangelicals, Pentecostals—even, dare I suggest, the Southern Baptist Convention?
7. Sadly, the provisional mission statement and guiding principles do not seem to call for any specific changes in the substance of the Washington Office’s work. They do recommend some helpful changes in procedures. More “two way communications” with church members would be an improvement. And it would be good to have wider “consultation within the church” about setting priorities among the “numerous [General Assembly] statements concerning public affairs both domestic and international.” Perhaps someday we will ask why our church needs to take so many positions on so many matters that go beyond the clear teaching of Scripture.

So that’s my two cents. You can let the General Assembly Mission Council know what you think by reading the Washington Office study documents and filling out the survey.