Home

Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.)

Feminism

Viewpoints

Quarterly Newsletter

Letters to the Editor

Mission

The Persecuted Church

Ecumenical Connections

How You Can Help

The VOW Budget

Contact VOW
 

Foremother of Voices of Sophia Recounts History of Advocacy for Women in the PC(USA)

by
Sylvia Dooling

It seems curious to me that the editors of Horizons magazine chose one of the “foremothers”¹ of Voices of Sophia (VOS) to write the history of advocacy for women² in the PC(USA)³ instead of a more neutral and evenhanded historian.

For those of you who may not know, VOS is a Presbyterian affinity group⁴ which emerged from the ecumenical Re-Imagining Conference that took place in Minneapolis in l993.  While VOS numbers only a relative handful of Presbyterians, no one should discount its influence in the Presbyterian Church (USA). Sprinkled throughout the denomination, VOS’ supporters serve in a number of official and unofficial positions in the church that are disproportionate to VOS’ actual membership. Ms. Thorson-Smith is one such VOS adherent and sponsor whose name seems to “pop-up” repeatedly whenever the church engages in conversations about issues of social justice and human sexuality.  

It is indisputable – Ms. Thorson-Smith comes to her “recounting of the history of advocacy for women” with a particular bias.  In her opinion, anyone who disagrees with her radical feminist and/or revisionist sexual ethics is a threat to the position and authority of women in the church.  For instance, she argues that the 1990s were “traumatic and disruptive years for women’s groups.”  Why were they traumatic?  Here are just two examples of Ms. Thorson-Smith’s reasoning:

·        The Women’s Ministries Unit (later to be named the Women’s Ministries Program Area – and more recently, Women’s Ministries) is one of the departments within our denominational structure that has most consistently produced programs and materials that promote radical feminist philosophy as an alternative to the confessional and constitutional standards of our denomination.  In 1999, Women’s Ministries selected Jane Adams Spahr (the well-known lesbian “evangelist”) to receive its annual Women of Faith award.  When ordinary women and men across the church voiced their concern with this decision, General Assembly Council intervened (although the award was still presented), and the then director of Women’s Ministries “resigned.”  Ms. Thorson-Smith sees this as a setback for women.

Another example.  When she was director of Women’s Ministries, Mary Ann Lundy began a program called the National Network of Presbyterian College Women (NNPCW).  At its inception, NNPCW majored in introducing young women to Ms. Lundy’s particular interest – Re-imagining.⁵  Ms. Thorson-Smith views the decision of the General Assembly to review NNPCW’s programs and resources to be an attack on women’s authority – notwithstanding the fact that the General Assembly found that Re-imagining was outside the bound not only of the Presbyterian Church, but of the Christian faith.   

·        The Advocacy Committee for Women’s Concerns (ACWC) is one of several committees of General Assembly that is “expected to be a prophetic voice for the church and society…” Ms. Thorson-Smith reports that ACWC is successfully keeping women’s issues before the church in the opening years of the 21^st Century.  For instance, she cites the report on “prostituted women” that ACWC prepared for the 2002 General Assembly.  She correctly reports that the General Assembly approved the report, but fails to tell the whole story.  The 2002 GA specifically requested ACWC to remove several resources from its report that commissioners found offensive.  ACWC chose to ignore the request.  Apparently in Ms. Thorson-Smith’s mind, this kind of noncompliance is a great stride forward for women.  In response, I would suggest that she should be reminded that Scripture describes two kinds of prophets – false prophets and true prophets.  Too often the “prophetic voice” coming out of ACWC has echoed the position of the secular left rather than the historical position of the church.

Overall, Ms. Thorson-Smith is clear.  Those feminist programs and materials that tear down the historic biblical faith of the church are pro-women.  So are those programs and materials that advocate “re-imagining” a new church that will celebrate justice love, unbiblical theologies, the ordination of self-avowed, practicing homosexuals, abortion on demand, and other planks of the so-called “progressive” platform.  Anything else is discriminatory and abusive of women.  Nonsense!

One more thing.  The part of the story that Ms. Thorson-Smith fails to recount is that during the 1990’s and the early years of the 21^st century, it was a grassroots movement of Presbyterian women (and men) that was most effectively stood in the way of her radical reforms.  They studied what she and other radical feminists were saying, found it wanting, then successfully used the polity and processes provided by our constitution to begin correcting their serious departures from the historic biblical teachings of the Presbyterian church.  It should also be mentioned that these folks used the internet to break the monopoly on communication enjoyed so long by Ms. Thorson-Smith and her allies.

I disagree with Ms. Thorson-Smith’s analysis that there has been a backlash against women’s “authority” in the PC(USA).  Rather, it is a recognition that the authority of the Triune God has priority over the authority of women.  Under God’s authority, we are to “serve” the Lord and one another as beloved daughters and sons.  The walls that divide us have been demolished by the cross of Christ.  “There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus.” 

So, is there hope for the future within the area of Women’s Ministries?  I certainly “hope” so.  However, those who will not learn from the past are probably condemned to repeat it.   At the present time, there is major restructuring going on within the General Assembly Council.  New leadership will be chosen for the department we now call “Women’s and Racial Ethnic Ministries.”  I would encourage those responsible for hiring this leadership to look for a woman (or women) who will represent all the women of the church – not just the radical few.  I would encourage them to assure the church that all programs and resources produced by Women’s and Racial Ethnic Ministries will, in the future, consistently uphold our biblical and constitutional standards.  And, I would encourage them to find leaders who will root all advocacy for women in a Christian and biblical worldview. 

Frankly, if these kinds of changes do not occur, and the leadership of Women’s Ministries continues to reflect the ideology of a relative handful of radical activists, Women’s Ministries of the Presbyterian Church (USA) will continue to be irrelevant to the vast majority of our women.  Congregations will continue to find creative and biblical ways of ministering to women without any assistance from leadership in Louisville.  And, paid staff will continue be cut as Presbyterians vote with their pocketbooks to put an end to the nonsense. 

To be real honest, I’m not as “curious” about the decision of the editors of Horizons to ask Sylvia Thorson-Smith to write this “history” as I suggested in the first paragraph of this editorial.  What I really am is frustrated.  Presbyterian Women should be obligated to represent all the women of the church.  But, they don’t. Rather, they show their bias by siding with those who want a new kind of church, and to worship a new kind of god.  To paraphrase what someone once said, “God created women in his own image; now some of them are intent on returning the favor.”