TeSelle comments

How Can You Set Priorities
Using False Dichotomies?

by Gene TeSelle

Click here for the PNS report.

Click here for other comments

Last year John Detterick, Executive Director of the General Assembly Council (GAC), started a process of prioritizing activities so that scarce resources could be "better allocated." The General Assembly had already instructed the GAC to shift additional funding into evangelism. Following up on that, Detterick consulted with "middle governing bodies," seeking their guidance on budget matters; this had the same result, making evangelism the top priority. The GAC accordingly set two priorities, evangelism and discipleship.

There have been plenty of warnings not to be misled by a false dichotomy between evangelism and social justice. The dichotomy has often been promoted by conservative organizations, using it as a "wedge issue" to imply that the agencies in Louisville are not doing enough for evangelism and are wasting resources on social advocacy that Presbyterians do not even support; usually charges of heresy are thrown in as well, to support one kind of activity and discredit the other. Attempts to reorient the social witness policies of the PC(USA) have failed. The only alternative for those who oppose them is to weaken or abolish the agencies that advocate and administer the General Assembly's statements on social issues. When there is no one doing this in a forceful way, then conservative forces won't have to worry, no matter how many pronouncements the church makes.

On August 25 three committees -- the Advocacy Committees for Racial Ethnic Concerns and Women's Concerns, and the Advisory Committee on Social Witness Policy -- met in Seattle to reaffirm the PC(USA)'s long-time commitment to social justice and to point out that evangelism and advocacy, far from being opposed, work together in many ways. The Rev. Curtis Jones of Baltimore warned against a narrowing of programs that would promote "inreach rather than outreach," and the Rev. Kirk Peruccia of Kansas City warned, "Every time a new circle is drawn, those who have historically been excluded -- those in this room -- are pushed farther and farther outside the circles."

Now the GAC has met in Montreat. In a tense four hours on September 22, using a "forced ranking" method, it rated all the programs within each division as high, medium, and low in "impact." The result is more or less what was anticipated. In Congregational Ministries, curriculum development and stewardship came out high; peacemaking, spiritual formation, theological education, and conference ministries came out low. In National Ministries, evangelism came out high, while Church and Society, National Volunteers, the Washington Office, and higher education ministry came out low. In Worldwide Ministries the hunger program came out high, to the surprise of many, while Self-Development of Peoples, ecumenical programs, and interfaith relations came out low.

This is not the whole story. Three points deserve thoughtful consideration and action.

1. The GAC's actions do not yet constitute a budget for the coming year. GAC executive director John Detterick called them "a first baby step"; deputy executive director Kathy Lueckert called them "just the first cut" in a long process. They are the first statement, however, of the criteria by which a budget will be prepared. This first step can and should be scrutinized now and at the General Assembly, and if improvements are needed they should be made now, before the process is set in concrete.

2. Leslie Scanlon of the Outlook has reported that GAC chair Peter Pizor said that the GAC has decided to develop "a theologically based budget with clear standards for what is first, what is second, what is third." The theological basis used by the GAC has not yet been reported publicly. We hope that it will consider the full range of Scripture, the Confessions (including the Confession of 1967 and the new Brief Statement), and the Great Ends of the Church.

3. The GAC, insofar as it reflected theologically, did not exclude service and advocacy activities. Its definition of evangelism included "active membership in the church" and "obedient service in the world"; its definition of discipleship included "service to the world" and "unceasing labor for justice, peace and freedom for all people." The question is whether its rankings actually respected those broad definitions. When the "forced ranking" method is used, it is difficult to maintain that kind of breadth; by the nature of the case, programs are put in competition with each other, and those which have the highest "impact" (however that is defined) will shove the others toward the bottom. Instead of engaging in "forced ranking," it would be more productive to ask how various programs could work together to strengthen each other.