The PCUSA General Assembly took yet another left-wing approach to an issue last night, voting to go along with the evisceration of an overture calling for balance in the denomination’s treatment of abortion. Pittsburgh Presbytery had sought GA approval for this:
The Presbytery of Pittsburgh overtures the 218th General Assembly (2008) to direct all PC(USA) entities in both funding and in publications to reflect balance and equality in advocating both sides of the abortion issue so that any advocacy is in full compliance with our 1992 Abortion Policy. Therefore, we direct our national offices to uphold this policy in any and all of their communications with both church and society.
Beaver-Butler Presbytery had asked for something even stronger:
1.Direct all PC(USA) entities, in both funding and in publications, to reflect balance and equality in advocating both sides of the abortion issue so that any advocacy is in full compliance with our 1992 abortion policy.
2. Direct the PC(USA) national offices to uphold the 1992 abortion policy in any and all funding allocations, and in all of their communications with both church and society; or to immediately cease funding in support of any one side of this critical issue. (Either of these actions would be in compliance with the 1992 Abortion Policy and would affirm the policy’s statement that the church provide for freedom and exercise of conscience on this matter which so clearly divides us.)
What they got was this:
The 218th General Assembly (2008) directs the appropriate PC(USA) entities to redevelop congregational resource materials, on the subject of reproductive options, to more adequately reflect the full spectrum of biblical, theological, and pastoral counsel, while remaining consistent with the policy of the 1992 report of the Special Committee on Problem Pregnancies and Abortion and the 2006 policy on Late-Term Pregnancies and Abortion. The General Assembly Council will report back to the 219th General Assembly (2010).
Translation: We’ll put in a few more quotes from anti-woman Neanderthals pro-lifers in our resource stuff. The Washington Office, on the other hand, will continue to argue against pretty much any restriction on the destruction of fetal life, as will the Advisory Committee on Social Witness Policy (ACSWP), Women’s Ministries, and Presbyterians Affirming Reproductive Options. If you don’t like it, you can pound salt.
June 28, 2008 at 10:13 am
It does have a “fox guarding the hen house” quality to it.
July 1, 2008 at 12:51 pm
“Balance and equity for both sides” in the abortion issue?????
Why does it often seem that the only thing the GA-crowd is willing to take a stand on is the homosexual issue?
July 1, 2008 at 1:34 pm
Actually, PCUSA has taken a stand on the abortion issue, one that I think is contrary to where the majority of members are; namely, they are in favor of the unfettered right to abortion under any circumstances (even the opposition to partial-birth abortion passed in 2006 has to be qualified by the continued presence of three different denominational affiliates being members of the Religious Coalition for Abortion Rights, which has never met a dead baby it didn’t like). The effort to bring balance was an effort to try to 1) better get the case against abortion in front of Presbyterians, and 2) stop the continuing lobbying by the Washington Office, Women’s Ministries, and PARO in favor of a position that is contrary to both so many PCUSA members’ beliefs and at least some GA actions. The unwillingness to do that demonstrates how abortion-friendly this GA was.
July 2, 2008 at 7:27 pm
David,
If God has turned away from the PC(USA), our policy on abortion is a leading reason why,