4.7. The strong probability that the resolutions do not reflect the views of a majority of Presbyterians

After the divestment resolutions were passed and considerable negative publicity was generated in the secular press, the PCUSA surveyed its nationwide leadership and lay members in February 2005, presumably hoping to find significant support for its actions. Instead, the survey indicated that these actions are being imposed from the top down and are not generally supported by the membership, a significant portion of which are not even aware of the controversial action.

The pattern of response was not necessarily unexpected or uncommon, with “specialized clergy” (the church bureaucracy and pastors in non-parish settings) favoring divestment 64-24 percent. Parish pastors favored it by a narrow margin: 48-43 percent. Elders, on the other hand, opposed divestment 46-30 percent, and regular church members also opposed it 42-28 percent. (18)

The resolutions thus seem more the result of the advocacy of a determined minority than the keen judgment of the larger church. While the supporters of divestment present a compelling mixture of determination and sincere passion, they are simply not representative of the majority of church members. Thus, they have positioned the church far beyond where most Presbyterians want it to go.

_______________________

Continue reading by clicking on one of the links below:

   4.1. The resolution relies upon flawed sources of historical background information
   4.2. The resolutions are premised upon flawed theological grounds
   4.3. Speakers were carefully chosen with no balance
   4.4. The error of calling for immediate and unconditional removal of the security barrier
   4.5. Divestment is the wrong pathway to peace in the region and guarantees that our church will play no constructive role as a mediator
   4.6. The error of trying to legislate a foreign policy by biennial resolutions in a fluid and constantly changing Middle East
   4.7. The strong probability that the resolutions do not reflect the views of a majority of Presbyterians
   4.8. The perception that the resolutions reflect a broader and troubling institutional bias against Israel within PCUSA offices and committees
      4.8.1. The Presbyterian News Service (PNS)
      4.8.2. PCUSA - Washington Offices
      4.8.3. The Advisory Committee on Social Witness Policy (ACSWP)