By the Presbyterian News Service
At its June 6-8 meeting in Albany and Schenectady, N.Y., the Advisory Committee on Social Witness Policy heard from its study teams, discussed General Assembly referrals and met with local Presbyterians engaged in outreach in Albany Presbytery.
The 12-member committee is elected by the General Assembly to help the whole church address matters of Christian conscience in an informed way.
ACSWP voted to work with the Advocacy Committee on Women’s Concerns on ways to address sexual abuse in the military and to continue its work on issues of compensation for lower-paid ministers and employees of the denomination. This last concern comes from two referrals from the 220th General Assembly (2012) report on the Church in the 21st Century.
1 Comment. Leave new
It would be interesting to know who wrote this article, and if the writer was present at the meeting on which the article reports. I say this because I have attended and written about many ACSWP meetings, and it wasn’t uncommon for there to be no other reporter attending the meetings. But still a PNS article would come out about the meeting, as if PNS had been there to observe and write its story in normal journalistic fashion.
So how did PNS generate its article? It would simply amble over to another office in the Louisville headquarters and get an account from ACSWP Coordinator Chris Iosso. What Iosso said happened at the meeting is what PNS reported. It was a sweetheart deal that allowed Iosso to paint whatever picture he wanted of a meeting he had fully orchestrated. Of course, everything looked rosy, because Iosso was telling the story.
Did the article critique the picture Iosso painted? No. Did the article bring out contrary opinions or balance its one source with opposing sources. No. Did the article ask difficult questions and provide background information to frame what Iosso wanted said? No. It wasn’t news; it was denominational propaganda.
Thus, I wonder what really went on at this meeting, reported only by PNS. Was it the typical ACSWP meeting, where like-minded progressive activists talked among themselves, as if they were truly representing a largely uninformed, uninterested, and unrepresented denomination? Was there no drama, no outrageous declarations left uncountered, no questionable decisions made, no difference of opinion? We won’t know, not from the PNS report, or rubberstamp, as the case may be.