What, no apology?
I notice that this month’s Life and Work magazine carries no apology for the damaging editorial of last month, which caused such widespread dismay. Instead, the letters page begins
Further responses to the editorial in the May issue of Life and Work cannot be published following the ruling of the General Assembly in May.
The magazine then continues with the Assembly’s statement regarding the two year moratorium on public discussion of some of the issues debated. Many in the Kirk felt that a line had been crossed in the writing of that editorial, and it seems astonishing that an apology is not forthcoming, notwithstanding the moratorium.
This is a mistake on the magazine’s part. An apology to the significant numbers of Kirk members and magazine readers for the magazine’s intrusion into a case about to come before the General Assembly, in such a partisan and alienating way, is surely called for, and to decline to publish any response to the editorial whatsoever is neither wise nor necessary.
As it stands, it now appears that the magazine cannot see the need for an apology nor will it publish any responses, which are not likely to be directly related to the issues discussed at the General Assembly and which would, in all probability, be concerned only with the relationship of the magazine with the Kirk. Does Life and Work really feel its hands are tied? I can’t think why it should.
But perhaps there will be an apology in two years’ time?
Soli Deo Gloria
Hi Louis,
I too was struck by the silencing of debate in Life and Work. It appears to me to give the lie to the “editorially independent” claim. Life and Work has become the organ of the Liberal Kirk and is only independent when it suits.
I say that even though they published a letter from me this month (sent in well before May’s events).
Kind regards
James.
James,
I would differ with you on a technicality.
To say that a magazine is “editorially independent” simply means that it answers to nobody, other than its editor. It is possible for a magazine to be editorially independent but completely partisan.
The magazine’s editorial policy may agree with the view of one wing of the denomination, but that is not necessarily because the editor takes orders from that wing. It may simply be that the editor agrees with that wing on this issue.
YMB
Hello YMB,
My point was slightly different, so I don’t necessarily disagree with you.
The magazine toes the party line now, supposedly in obedience to the General Assembly’s ruling, not because the editor thought there shouldn’t be further discussion. This is by their own admission. It was as if their hands were tied, but that means they are not independent and free to choose what to debate themselves.
Would that they had been similarly mindful of church procedures before publishing the previous editorial.
Kind regards
James.
Thank you for that clarification.
Have you seen July’s Monthly Record yet? Good piece in it I thought.
Also thought Moderator’s address was very relevant.
(PS, off topic but has anyone considered that it might be more efficient to reach children through their child-minding grannies rather than youth groups? More personal and doesn’t cause same child protection issues.)
LH
Louis, let it go …. move on and proclaim the good news.