How Can You Set Priorities
Using False Dichotomies?
by Gene TeSelle
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.
