The Value of
Information
by Barbara Kellam-Scott, moderator of Semper
Reformanda
Barbara Kellam-Scott, a Presbyterian elder and
moderator of Semper Reformanda, is a professional writer. Out of that
experience she does a careful analysis of the Jan/Feb 2001 issue of The
Presbyterian Layman. Asserting that information matters,
she urges that we take seriously the "misinformation" that
is so influential in our church.
Check out an interesting response
to this essay.
[2-3-01]
We're in the "information age," and in
general it's coming at us from more sources and in more forms than we
can begin to have time to deal with. That can be both boon and bane to
our understanding of a particular situation. If I'm exposed to three or
four different "spins" on an issue, I may be better equipped
to discern the truth about it and form my own opinion. And I've learned
from such experiences to look for the spin in every piece of information
I get. There is no objective reporting. [With the exception, of course,
of Network News and this web site! Editor.]
In the PC(USA), we have very limited sources of
information. And unfortunately, the most prolific and accessible source
is heavily spun in a direction that most of us associated with this
other publication find erroneous at best and often downright offensive.
Many of us are so disgusted we've quit reading The Presbyterian
Layman. But I think trying to ignore The Layman and its
publishers is a high-risk disservice to our denomination and our fellow
Presbyterians. It is, after all, the only source many people have for
information about the denomination. If we aren't at least aware of how
the PLC is spinning the news, we leave our church unprotected.
For instance, the Lay Committee is well known for its
complaints that the denominational structure is in the hands of
loose-cannon liberals who are out of touch with the will and the
interests of the average Presbyterian. The latest issue of The
Layman (Vol. 34, No. 1, Jan/Feb 2001) is no exception, especially
when the denomination is extended by association with the National
Council of Churches. Yet two out of three front-page articles and two
other feature articles in this edition cite the authority of
denominational servants and applaud opinions or actions that are -- or
are spun as -- supportive of PLC positions:
The biggest headline on the front page is
"Researcher: Vote will ban gay unions." The article cites a
prediction by Jack Marcum of Research Services, "posted on the
official web site of the denomination," that "opposition to
same-sex unions will carry the day in a majority of presbyteries"
and amendment 00-O will become W-4.9007. I had a little trouble finding
such a posting until Jack Marcum pointed me to his set of dispatches for
publication in Monday Morning. There indeed is a brief piece,
including a chart (but not the same chart that's on page 1 of The
Layman), reporting that 57 percent of members, 61 percent of
elders, and 49.6 percent of pastors agreed or agreed strongly with the
statement, "Ministers should be prohibited from performing same-sex
union ceremonies."
As The Layman reported, the data are from a
Presbyterian Panel survey conducted in August 2000. But the Layman
article says nothing about Monday Morning, fails to note that
Marcum labeled his note "Opinion on Same-Sex Unions," and also
fails (with Marcum) to note that this is not the official report of the
Panel findings. Marcum tells me by e-mail that that will come
"later this year"; whether before or after it can influence
the voting on 00-O is unclear. It can also help, in interpreting this
information to readers of The Layman or Monday Morning,
that the question asked of the Panel is not directly relevant to votes
on the amendment, which uses quite different language to describe the
ministerial behavior it would prohibit. The other question on which
Marcum reported, with "a similar pattern" of results, is also
off the mark ("It's okay for two people of the same sex to hold a
union ceremony in a Presbyterian church."). Finally, of course,
Panel results will have no value for predicting any ratification vote
unless they're broken down by presbytery. Marcum's prediction is even
more skewed than using the U.S. popular vote for President to predict
the Electoral College. But we may well hear, after 00-O has failed, that
an officially conducted national referendum on the question had
different results and that the votes in the presbyteries must have been
manipulated.
The second front-page headline is "Jesus issue
back on council agenda." Using words like "festering" and
"pass judgment," the article traces the "negative
reaction" to Dirk Ficca's remarks at last summer's Peacemaking
Conference. It claims that "two leaders of the GAC have
acknowledged that Ficca was amiss in his comments." The two are GAC
executive director John Detterick and chair Peter Pizor. Both of them
are quoted from appearances prior to the GAC meeting that did not take
up the issue -- Detterick from his remarks to the Presbyterian Coalition
and Pizor from the Covenant Network conference in October. Nothing is
said of the surprising way Pizor's comments were received. Leaders of
the Witherspoon Society and Semper Reformanda who were at the Covenant
Net-work conference, although we're named only as "some independent
Presbyterian groups that oppose many of the PCUSA's Biblical and
confessional standards," are credited by The Layman with
influencing Pizor, by criticizing him and Detterick, to
"delay" GAC action. The dance between hailing leaders'
authority in making promises to conservatives in the face of threats,
and then decrying their susceptibility to the influence of progressives,
is instructive.
Inside the issue, a press release announcing plans for
the Lay Committee's Faith and Life Conference, May 31 to June 3, is
headlined "Presbyterian leaders will speak ..." The leaders
pictured are GA212 moderator Syngman Rhee and vice moderator Rebecca
McElroy. They're given nearly equal billing and described as
"long-time friends ... [who] don't see eye-to-eye on all
issues." No mention is made of McElroy's membership on the Lay
Committee's "Board of Directors" listed on the facing page
(which, you will remember, is self-selected and comprises the whole
voting membership of the Lay Committee), of the Layman attacks
on Rhee that led to McElroy's reconciling gesture that founded their
friendship, or indeed of the fact that the vice moderator is appointed
by the moderator, not elected by the General Assembly.
The article promises, "They will appear together
to talk about their year as moderator and vice moderator and also during
a plenary session on the state of the denomination." The theme of
the conference, which takes a deep second billing to these star
speakers, is "'Terms of Peace,' a model to help Presbyterians
understand better how to settle differences that have long troubled the
denomination." That may sound encouraging, but the list of other
speakers that follows makes it clear that the Lay Committee does not
expect progressives to be present to begin settling those differences.
The conference preacher, for instance, is James Logan of Charlotte NC,
he whose word to GA210 on social righteousness was "Don't lower the
bar."
Further inside the issue is an arresting photo of
Joseph Small and the headline, "Theological paper affirms Lordship
of Christ." The news is that Small, as "coordinator" of
the Office of Theology and Worship (TAW), has posted on TAW's page of
"the denomination's web site" a 1996 statement from the
Reformed Church in America, "The Crucified One is Lord." The
bulk of the article is devoted to explaining the "debate about
whether Jesus Christ is the only path to God" and grounding it in
the famous rhetorical question that Dirk Ficca actually placed in the
mouths of non-Christians. Both the photo caption and the article do
quote Joe Small as "call[ing] the [RCA] document 'a superb
theological paper.'" About half the Layman page is given
to a collection of sound bites from the RCA statement, which is actually
quite detailed and reasoned.
TAW's "public silence" on the Ficca issue,
other than this posting, is noted respectfully, but with no
acknowledgment that TAW would have to be authorized by the General
Assembly to take up the issue in any way. The article also ignores
another posting to the TAW web page -- Aurelia Fule's talk, "The
Trinity in Theology and Worship," from the September conference
sponsored by the National Association of Presbyterian Clergywomen and
the Women's Ministries Program Area. That's a shame, since Fule is a
former member of the TAW staff and the talk speaks directly to a current
mandate to TAW from GA212 to study the doctrine of the Trinity. Fule's
talk is also posted on the Witherspoon web site, which may suggest why
the Layman staff didn't cite it as demon-strating TAW's
authoritative voice.
The last three issues of the Layman have
celebrated an expected and then realized return of Christian and
Presbyterian influence to the federal government with the election of
President George W. Bush. In cover and front-page photos and articles,
we've learned about the Senate Chaplain, Condoleeza Rice, and Mr. Bush
himself. Only the article on Senate Chaplain Lloyd Ogilvie appears to be
based on direct and original contact with the articles' subjects. But
note that neither of the articles on actual Presbyterians lists any
denominational activity in the subjects' resumes. We don't even learn in
which presbytery Ogilvie serves and votes, only the last church he
served as pastor. He does note the greater intimacy he is afforded with
his Senate flock as compared to "the large church."
I hope you'll also note the continued absence of any
recognition of the influence of the PC(USA) Washington Office, such as
on debt cancellation. Even after the Presbyterian News Service corrected
its error and picked up the Religion News Service release on Pres.
Clinton's signing of the debt-release bill in early November, with its
quotes from Elenora Giddings Ivory as an invited speaker from one of the
religious groups recognized as having influenced the action, The
Layman, though a subscriber to RNS, has ignored it. The only
editorial mention of the Washington Office over these three political
editions is a half-page slam (in the Ogilvie issue) of the 2000
"Christian and Citizen" packet prepared by the D.C. staff. It
shares the page with a "profile in faith" of Al Gore and is
headlined, "How to be a politically correct Presbyterian
voter."
There is clear comment on the Washington Office,
however, and a clear indication that the PLC's campaign against it
continues. In the fundraising brochure that accompanies the Jan/Feb
edition, there's a letter from Parker Williamson listing five things
that happened during 2000 "to encourage Presbyterians" as
"seeds of renewal." The second one, just after Amendment 00-O,
is that "The General Assembly Council established priorities for
spending your contributions -- with the Washington Office drawing one of
the lowest rankings." And in the "2001 Harvest Survey" on
the envelope portion of the flyer, one of nine priorities offered to
readers for a yes/no vote as "priorities for the Presbyterian
Church (USA)" reads, "The PCUSA should either cease funding
for or revamp its Washington Office to reflect the views of
Presbyterians and not simply social action agencies." You can
expect to hear about that one again, probably at General Assembly.
Okay, so we disagree with these views and with the way
they're expressed. But we certainly do not deny the right of the
PresbyRight to hold and express them. What we must realize is that this
expression of these views is the most widespread and well-read
information being provided to the heart of the church. We who recognize
how skewed and limited it is ignore it at our own peril and that of our
denomination. We need to get fuller, clearer information out there. We
need to correct the carefully crafted misimpression of who and what this
church is and does.
