 This is a report on the work of the Advisory Committee on Social Witness Policy (ACSWP) and an introduction to new Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) policies on which this committee has worked; it does not review ALL Presbyterian social witness. We say “Presbyterian Social Witness” because each council of the church has its own call to prophetic witness. By serving the General Assembly (GA) with studies and recommendations, ACSWP seeks to inform but not dictate the social witness and social teaching of the whole church. Since 1936—as an overture to the Assembly celebrated—Presbyterians North and South began to elect bodies of volunteers with expertise and dedication to address pressing issues of Christian conscience. The idea was that the church should use its voice, as thoughtfully as it could with all the resources it could gather.
Statement After the Election by ACSWP
Since the general election in November 2016, the federal executive has made many disputed initiatives designed to change direction in international relations, environmental protection, health insurance coverage, police accountability, immigration and refugee policy, trade, and military spending. The Advisory Committee issued a statement soon after the election, lifting up time-honored Presbyterian/Reformed positions and advising against over-reaction to administration and media reports, not all of which are factually true. That statement is still applicable, and the ACSWP encourages strong support for the Office of Public Witness in Washington, DC, as our representatives there provide timely responses to new developments.
This update first (I) outlines six new policy statements and then (II) notes efforts from the last General Assembly onward, during which time the Committee has met in Baltimore (August 25-27), Louisville (Nov 10-12), and Tucson, AZ (Feb 23-25). A group of members and staff also met with representatives of the Foothills Presbytery in South Carolina, reported on by Presbyterian News Service. Section III discusses conflicts about current policies.
| Six New Policy Statements |
|
|
|
|
| The 222nd General Assembly (2016) adopted several major social witness policy statements, all of which are posted on the website for recording GA business, www.pc-biz.org, grouped by the committees to which they were assigned. The Advisory Committee on Social Witness Policy (ACSWP) also posted the policies by topic on its website. Those most recently adopted reports are:
|
|
|
|
| Two On-Going Studies and Three Meetings |
|
|
|
|
The Committee continues work on two studies assigned by prior Assemblies:
The Precautionary Approach and the Regulation of New Technologies.
The initiating overture provided three examples where “cost/benefit” approaches alone were seen as inadequate: Genetically modified organisms, nano-technology, and the interaction of toxins in a changing environment. These remain concerns, but a reference group has identified other emerging technologies and recognizes serious challenges to science-based regulation and international cooperation. A significant legal analysis was provided to ACSWP and several scientists have contributed initial perspectives. A draft report will be tested over the coming months prior to submission to the General Assembly for 2018.
One group that ACSWP consults with on these matters is the Social Ethics Network, a group of Presbyterian ethicists and theologians who teach in colleges, universities, and seminaries. They met in New Orleans in January and discussed the framework of sustainable development with Native Americans and others experiencing the impact of climate change on the wetlands and eroding coastline of Louisiana.
A dedicated study team held four hearings (in Oakland/Richmond, CA; El Paso, TX; Denver, CO; and Huntington, WVA) and looked at ways of regulating marijuana and certain other drugs, based on scientific evidence. The goal of ending the mass incarceration related to the “war on drugs,” with its undeniable “structural racism,” propels the study to argue for “legal regulation” of marijuana in ways analogous to alcohol or tobacco, and to endorse a similar approach with greater health protections for other addictive and non-addictive drugs. Please share this report with people in your congregations and offer to host a forum for discussion with us! The Committee’s work has received support from Clergy for A New Drug Policy, which is asking similar questions and urging policy reforms.
Recent Meeting Summaries
At its August 25-27 meeting in Baltimore, the Committee discussed racial justice initiatives with several in presbytery leadership, including organizing efforts to provide jobs for residents in a major waterfront development. The Committee reviewed the General Assembly past, heard a theological analysis from the host pastor (of First and Franklin St. Presbyterian), and examined possible future projects. As part of the Drug Policy study, the Committee also heard from a Johns Hopkins University researcher on the potential benefits of the hallucinogen, psilocybin, benefits which would require changes in the 1970 blanket prohibition to make medically accessible.
At its November meeting in Louisville, the Committee met with Presbyterian Mission Agency and Office of the General Assembly leadership, who gave guidance on priorities of the Mission Board and best approaches to the ACSWP self-study to be presented to the 2018 General Assembly. ACSWP also heard assessments of the scope and direction of the “Way Forward” and “Vision 2020” Committees. Members familiarized themselves with the Committee’s smaller office space and larger resource/research room, which contains samples of many resources and records sent to the Presbyterian Historical Society. The Committee’s office address changed from #3607 to #3231 after much downsizing and re-organization of space. The Committee also has a new half-time Mission Specialist to run its administrative side, Ms. Lacey Gilliam.
At its Tucson, AZ, meeting in March, the Committee discussed initial outlines of two studies: one of world order and international institutions, and another of the use of religious freedom exemptions on matters such as tax policy, contraceptive availability in medical coverage, and selective provision of goods and services. Currently anti-discrimination law requires all public entities to serve everyone, for example. ACSWP heard from persons concerned that religious liberty claims could become a vehicle for more discrimination. Six members of the Committee also attended a day-long seminar on immigration restrictions and new Sanctuary Movement thinking, also hearing from former Moderator John Fife, a leader in the Sanctuary Movement of the 1980’s. |
|
|
|
|
This is a brief update to the 2014 resolution, The Gospel from Detroit, which has led to an urban church network and which calls for presbyteries to renew their visions for urban mission and to include using proceeds from the sale of urban properties in urban strategies, especially for engaging within racial ethnic communities. This resolution was informed by the Urban Ministry Network, which devoted attention to urban mission policy at its last meeting in St. Louis, planning for both Big Tent and the 2018 General Assembly: http://www.presbyterianmission.org/story/urban-ministry-network-meeting-renews-call-urban-vision/ The Urban Ministry Network includes an ACSWP member (and some staff backing); one hope is that people committed to mission in General Assembly cities can write their own versions of “The Gospel of Detroit.” |
|
|
|
| Resources for Facing Political Conflict and Polarization |
|
|
|
|
| Serious statements on Christian responsibilities in politics are Reformed Faith and Politics (1983) and the 2008 statement on voting rights and electoral reform. The point of such General Assembly statements is not that all Presbyterians should hold the same political views—“God Alone is Lord of the Conscience,” as our statement on church/state relations says. Reformed Christians, however, have a very high view of government as God’s agent to provide for common welfare and common protection by democratic and representative means. This means standing up for Gospel values and virtues in the public sphere, and not being afraid to address disagreements openly, and without demonizing other viewpoints.
It has been the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.)’s long practice to ask teams of volunteer experts to produce reports to advise members and to guide the Office of Public Witness in Washington, DC, and Presbyterians involved with state and local councils of churches. ACSWP is producing a new thumb-drive resource that will contain reports on most debated social-ethical questions of the past 20+ years, almost all of which are also posted on-line for free download. As a sample, however, here are reports that address questions raised by actions of the new U.S. Presidential administration. These resources can be located on the ACSWP’s topics page. |
|
|
|
| The Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) periodically reviews the work of its committees and this year ACSWP is on the list. You will soon receive an invitation to respond to a survey about ASCSWP’s work between 2010 and the present. Please take the time to complete this survey. Contact Jean Demmler, Chris Iosso, or Perry Chang in Research Services at perry.chang@pcusa.org or (800) 727-7228, ext. 4139, if you have any questions or comments about the overall process. |
|
|
|
You are receiving this email because you signed up to receive occasional updates on the work of the Advisory Committee on Social Witness Policy (ACSWP).
Presbyterian Mission Agency, an agency of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.)
100 Witherspoon Street
Louisville, KY 40202
800-728-7228 | 502-569-5000
Website | Email | Privacy Policy |
|
|
|
