August 2003 letters to the editor Archives of letters to the editor

'The fight is out there, save your energy for it' August 27, 2003 When I played lacrosse at the University of Colorado, our coach would run practices that were extremely difficult in nature. As a result, tempers would often flare up and there would be a fight or two at some point during the season. Coach would always respond with, "The fight is out there, save your energy for it!" Right now we are at a crisis within the PCUSA. I know my temper begins to fray when I see some of the pronouncements being made by our denominational leaders. However, I would caution my friends who are on the conservative evangelical side of the fence with the same advice that my coach gave me in college. The fight is out there, save your energy for it! I must say that recent attacks on PFR bring an incredible sense of sadness to my heart. If we begin to attack our allies in the renewal movement, what are we going to be left with? We have made incredible inroads into the power structures of our denominations. Witness the increasing margins of defeat for pro-gay forces at the presbytery level when they try to remove the fidelity and chastity amendment. Certainly we are nowhere close to accomplishing all that we would wish for but even well-respected evangelical periodicals such as Christianity Today are beginning to notice the positive change. (See their article titled "Turning the Mainline Around" in the August issue.) The cover photo for the Christianity Today August issue pictures a tugboat turning a mighty ship around. What a great illustration for the kind of effort and perseverance it is going to take to get this job done. We are succeeding little by little and we need to take heart and stay the course. Infighting gets us nowhere and only poisons our efforts to renew and revitalize our dying church. Through God's grace and much prayer this work will get done but only if we remain unified in our efforts as renewal groups. Please allow groups like PFR to tell us where they stand rather than those who have no connection with the group! And most importantly, may we all be on our knees praying for the future of our denomination. To God be the glory! Rev. Doug Resler Overlook Presbyterian Church Mobile, Ala. Beyond the realm of central casting August 27, 2003 Where are you people getting this stuff, "Some gay activists want church to accept multiple partners as 'holy'"? Central casting could not come up with characters like this. No writer's imagination is that fertile. I believe I finally have it figured out. It's the same old thing when there is bizarre and unexplainable behavior. Louisville has become a mini-Woodstock. There is no other answer for this bizarre behavior and thought. Is there a "Crack Dealers for Christ" chapter? Douglas Anderson PFR has been straightforward August 26, 2003 Mr. L. Rus Howard asks for "a clear, straightforward and forthright statement from PFR," and I can only ask in return, has Mr. Howard been reading PFR's own pronouncements and publications, or only been reading The Layman's articles on PFR? From reading PFR's statements straight (such as their response to Gene Robinson's elevation – which was forthright enough to anger at least one member of my church), I don't think there's any doubt where they stand. I also don't see where Mr. Howard conjures "Barbara Wheeler's feeling that PFR is ready to join hands with the Covenant Network," as I don't see that reflected anywhere in her speech at Fuller or in anything else I've seen her say. What I see, rather, is a common commitment between Barbara Wheeler and the leaders of PFR to disagree without demonizing, which is a logical part of PFR's commitment to pray without prejudice. It's that commitment, I think, which divides what Ms. Wheeler refers to as "the great middle" from those she dubs "superactivists and their sympathizers" (and bear in mind, she means that to apply to many on her side of the fence as well as some on ours), who are unable or unwilling to understand the concept. There is, it seems to me, a fundamental assumption here which is wildly incorrect: namely, that one can accept without reservation the definitions of PFR offered by other groups. Barbara Wheeler says something that can be taken to indicate that an alliance is forming between PFR and Covenant Network – therefore we can conclude that PFR "has decided to enter into a political partnership with the Covenant Network." Other conservative groups decide that PFR must be growing lukewarm because they don't choose to operate in an obstructionist manner – therefore we can conclude that "PFR is running hot-and-cold on its relationship with the Covenant Network and the Louisville establishment." Never you mind that PFR itself clearly denies this view of its work – they aren't to be trusted, only those who offer a view of PFR we find negative are to be trusted. Therefore, "the only conclusion we can draw is that PFR is lukewarm in its beliefs." Well, no, we can also conclude that others are trying to use PFR to serve their own agendas; and if one considers all the evidence, that seems a more plausible conclusion. Rev. Rob Harrison Grand Lake, Col. Is fidelity a group thing? August 26, 2003 "There can be fidelity in threesomes" …? Why not foursomes, or fivesomes (or you choose your number)? Looks like a free-for-all to me. Oh, yes, but remember, only as long as fidelity is involved! Rev. Steven L. Seng First Presbyterian Church Wellsburg, W.Va. A good candidate for moderator August 26, 2003 From The Layman Online article, it looks like the Rev. David McKechnie has everything needed to make a great moderator. Why can't Bible-believing Presbyterians get behind him and let's get a moderator who has something else on his mind other than putting gays and lesbians in our pulpits? If we want to save the Presbyterian Church, we better do just that. Ed McLean Maitland, Fla. McKechnie may be last, best hope for PCUSA August 26, 2003 If elected moderator, the Rev. David KcKechnie may well be the PCUSA's last, best hope for saving the church from disaster. Given the actions of a majority of the General Assembly, however, and not to coin a phrase: "He doesn't have a prayer," something both he and PCUSA need badly. Jack Kime Maryville, Ill. McKechnie should be elected hands down August 26, 2003 If one were to go on numbers alone, the Rev. David McKechnie should be the next moderator hands down. The majority of Presbyterian churches of all flavors are usually low in numbers and programs. So much for the frozen chosen. It is gratifying to see someone who images what Presbyterian leaders used to be in America, because for some time now, so many incompetents have positioned themselves in leadership positions destroying the PCUSA. The Rev. Dr. Harold Kurtz would have made an excellent current moderator, but God had other plans. It is with hope and prayer, that the new moderator along with competent elders can steer back the PCUSA to its Biblical roots. Louis S. Nowasielski A contradiction in terms August 26, 2003 Well, it didn't take long, now, did it? With the abominations committed by of the Episcopal Church this summer, the recent Supreme Court rulings in favor of the sodomites and our own continued apostate judicial and theological decisions in the PCUSA, is it any wonder that we now hear people like Debra Kolodny advocating for "holy polyamory." C'mon, whom is she kidding? "Healthy, polyamorous relationships?" That's a contradiction in terms if I ever heard one. If I were not already convinced of the truth of the doctrine of total depravity, the examples embodied in the death-styles espoused by the likes of Ms. Kolodny and her allies at the WOW 2003 conference would have done the job. I'm sure that "holy pedophilia" and "holy beastiality" won't be far behind. Count on it coming soon to a church near you. When will God's faithful people say "Enough is enough"? Rev. Bill Pawson Westminster Church A Confessing Church Canton, Ohio To change leaders, you have to move up August 26, 2003 I've read several articles in The Layman and the subsequent responses by readers (particularly over the PFR). I have to say that I am perplexed. I am a conservative, theologically, socially and politically. And across the board, conservatives appear to be distrustful of any centralized power. I say this not as a criticism, but as an observation. Having made this observation, let me make another. A full 65-75 percent of the people sitting in the pews of the PCUSA reject the ordination of practicing homosexuals. This is, of course, only one issue within the PCUSA that is causing such consternation and division. But, where is the division? The division is, of course, between the people sitting in the pew and the leadership of the church. Is there little wonder that conservatives in this denomination are distrustful of centralized power? Nevertheless, I am still perplexed. If conservatives really want to initiate change and reform within the denomination, how do they expect to do so if they do not "centralize" their efforts? A full 65-75 percent of the people sitting in the pew have voiced their heartfelt and spirit-felt convictions. Nevertheless, the issue is being ever more forced upon us. The only way to change the pressure is to remove the lid! And yes, that involves a risk! Ever tried to remove the pressure cap on a hot radiator? Let's put it this way. The only way to change the direction of our denomination is by moving up from the grassroots and into positions of leadership. That is the whole reason people join grassroots efforts. If conservatives are satisfied by remaining at the grassroots level, then I hope they are happy with the decisions that will be made completely without their input! And conservatives will remain at the grassroots level if they consume one another in distrust and accusations. If 65-75 percent of the people in this denomination are convicted by the Spirit that we're heading in the wrong direction (and not just on issues of ordination), then they need to seek out competent, articulate and compassionate leaders with the same convictions to go and represent them and the truth at session meetings, presbytery meetings and General Assemblies. No other course of action will suffice. No other course of action has made a difference. The convictions run deep on both sides. But the figures have not changed over 30 years. This means we have reached a stalemate. But the stalemate isn't between people in the pews, it's between the people in the pews and the people who are in the leadership positions of this denomination. The conservatives have the power to break the stalemate and take a stand. This requires much more than a grassroots movement! It requires some centralization of effort. Unless conservatives can trust one another to do the right thing, then all is lost and our energies have been misspent. Is there anyone out there who hears what I am saying? Is there anyone out there with the guts, determination and conviction to step up and begin the process? Todd McCoy Richmond, Va. PFR needs to make straightforward statement August 25, 2003 While Jim Berkley's letter of August 22 was an interesting counterpoint defense of charges made against PFR by individuals who are confused about where PFR stands on the issues dividing our denomination, it did not clear the air. Like it or not, many in the denomination, on both sides of the fence, are unclear about PFR's theological convictions and political aspirations. Evidence of this confusion is seen in Barbara Wheeler's feeling that PFR is ready to join hands with the Covenant Network. Further evidence of the confusion is seen when those in evangelical circles believe that PFR has decided to enter into a political partnership with the Covenant Network and the Louisville establishment. The evidence seems to indicate that PFR is running hot-and-cold on its relationship with the Covenant Network and the Louisville establishment. Thus, the only conclusion we can draw is that PFR is lukewarm in its beliefs. Of course, a clear, straightforward and forthright statement from PFR would clear the air and set the record straight. L. Rus Howard Thanks for PFR's response August 25, 2003 Thank you, James Berkley, PFR Issues Ministry Director, for the information provided on The Layman site in "PFR responds to Wheeler, others." (Aug. 22). You seem to be exemplifying I Corinthians 16:13,14: "Be on the alert, stand firm in the faith, act like men, be strong. Let all that you do be done in love." There is no better foundation for our focus in our ministry for our Lord and Savior! Greg Leaman Oostburg, Wisc. PFR's official 'explainer' has tough job August 25, 2003 Thank you, James D. Berkley, for explaining PRF. I can remember when PFR didn't have to explain itself. If you are the official "explainer," then you have a tough job. I don't feel nearly as comfortable as I once did about PFR and exactly where it stands. Pete Allen Sunnyvale, Texas First response based on incomplete information August 25, 2003 I had the opportunity to read the full text of Barbara Wheeler's speech at Fuller today. With your gracious cooperation, I 'd like to offer a partial apology to her regarding my letter to The Layman published last Friday. Not about my initial observations, they were direct and experiential, but about the conclusions I drew from them and other sources, including The Layman article from which her speech was extracted. In the full text, while Ms. Wheeler remained fundamentally committed to gay ordination, I felt that she was willing to take something of a balanced approach to the issues, especially to admit that both sides have sinned and to encourage us to look deeper than the levels on which we frequently debate and are divided. I think she makes a good point that we should not be willing to judge the other solely by the extremes we see, no matter how conspicuous and convenient it makes a "straw-man" argument. One of my reflections from my last letter (prior to reading Ms. Wheeler) was that we will probably not find community and trust if we are relying upon how cleverly we package our agenda or how fervently we fight for it or how pure we claim our motivations to be. Rather, community can only come when we are able and willing to confess our own sinfulness and brokenness towards, for and to those with whom we are in conflict. I felt that Ms. Wheeler was indeed willing to do so in a limited fashion – she forgot to include herself as one of the sinners. For my own part, I confess to giving into the sin of judging based on limited and incomplete information. How easy it becomes to demonize the other when we remain in ignorance of them as a whole person. Our divisions sometimes seem something like an allergic reaction – there may be a genuine insult to the system, but subsequent exposures bring more reaction from lesser provocations. We become sensitized and tend to treat anything we hear from our opponents with fear and mistrust. There are real, serious and fundamental differences within the Presbyterian Church. I'm not sure that Ms. Wheeler is willing to fully acknowledge this. We are unlikely to find resolution unless we are willing to embrace, rather than to avoid, dissonance, conflict, anger, pain, loss, suffering. Yet if we are to fight, let us at least try to fight fairly. Bruce M. Williams San Francisco, Ca. A man cannot become a woman August 25, 2003 What a heart-breaking story. I can only imagine the level of pain and confusion that would lead someone to attempt to change their gender. But gender cannot be changed.You can cosmetically tamper with appearance and plumbing, but Mr. Herwig remains a male. No one can ever change their DNA … there's still a Y chromosome there. The inability for anyone to either add to or subtract from their chromosome configuration prevents anyone from ever truly becoming "transgendered." Prayers for healing are an appropriate response to this case, along with repentance by all of us over our all-inclusive sexual brokenness, plus a commitment by each of us to move from where we are to where Christ is calling us to be in the realm of human sexuality. Ron Scates, senior pastor Highland Park Presbyterian Church Dallas, Texas Episcopalians can't top PCUSA August 25, 2003 Let the Episcopalians try and top this: Boston to ordain a transsexual. God made a mistake in the God code. Of course!! When it comes to depravity, nobody beats the PCUSA. Partial Birth Abortion as a sacrament and the Bible as toilet paper. Douglas Anderson Is this a great church or what? August 25, 2003 'Great middle' serves only to buy time It is not surprising for one side or another in a conflict to imagine itself closer to a "great middle" or center of a group. Few relish being a part of a radical fringe minority. The PCUSA is actually a shrinking minority of the worldwide Presbyterian and Reformed communities. I know that Dr. Wheeler and many less committed souls who long for a quiet and unconflicted church that can meet individual spiritual needs and do a little public good without calling much attention to itself do not want arguments framed in terms of universal truths that have long histories. At times, it is more comforting to think more parochially and narrowly. If a group can capture some proposed "middle" that then "compromises" so that one group of extremists can live with it while the other is, by extension, excluded by their own extremism – an "obvious" sin to a people caught up in extolling democracy. Viola! A victory for democracy, justice, and the American Way! There is a greater consensus for truth in the world than Dr. Wheeler and her friends are often willing to acknowledge. There is a wonderful irony in the condescending attitudes of Western progressives and liberals toward much of Third World Christianity and the Roman Catholic Church. How imperialistic and paternalistic these heroes and heroines of multiculturalism and feminism become when the world at large rejects some of their favorite doctrines! A quest for unity is laudable. But what is the real reason and purpose of seeking a unity that forces one or all the groups involved to give up on beliefs they feel to be part of eternal truth? I suspect that the real quest for unity in the PCUSA is all about keeping money flowing for bureaucratic structures and seminary salaries and endowments. A multiple split church (for I do not believe the Presbyterian church is split evenly into just two camps, conservative and liberal, but many shades in-between) would mean little money for governing body activities and seminaries forced to choose affiliations and cannibalize their endowments for short-term survival. Some of the divided churches would succeed and grow (though possibly never to the size the denomination once had). Others would hold on for a while and then shrink away and die or continue to change and merge in with other like-minded groups. I do not underestimate the difficulties splitting would entail. I also acknowledge that such splitting is technically schism, though, with the pluralism of belief currently extant in the PCUSA, it is questionable whether a split would be actual schism – for actual schism requires all of the splitting parties to be definably Christian. There are positions held by some in the church today that do not conform to the historical, consensual positions which have defined Christianity. Those very groups tend to deny that Christianity can or should be "defined." Just as our Book of Order can speak of essential tenets of the Reformed faith but absolutely cannot define them. Genuine unity can only come around a unanimity of belief about just such essentials. Then there can be some compromise around the periphery. Yet it is the very essentials that are most at question and yet seem farthest from the discussion of the PUP task force and most subject to such self-serving attempts to define a "great middle of the church." Until all of the Presbyterian church is ready to agree that "theology matters," and get serious about what theology is going to define us – meaning some will have to be included and others excluded – then talk of unity is meaningless. All mission will have to also be local. It might save us a lot of money. We can sell the Louisville offices to a secular business, lay off all national, synod, and most presbytery employees, and give money and support only to those whom we choose to. We would have the name of unity, but I, for one, refuse to let my presbytery get by with accepting someone ordained in another presbytery without a very exhaustive examination – including personal questions about his or her self-understanding of sexual preference and theology of marriage. There is no "unity" in that scenario, nor is there the survival of the institutions which all sides of the conflict seem to want to preserve. If there really is a "middle" group in the Presbyterian church, I guess their plea is for a conflicted unity that buys time. Time, some assume, will lead to the conversion of one side or the other. Perhaps. But the status quo is not stable. The church continues to shrink, and a denominational consensus on correcting that is not going to be possible because of our divisions. Do we have time to let time work? Maybe it would be more God-honoring to let the denomination die while we remain married together in the name of love despite our divisions in the hope that God works a miracle of conversion. God can do it, but history suggests that God is rather cautious in his interruptions of human freedom. Rev. Scott Mackey Fort Worth, Texas Signs of a healthy church August 25, 2003 In my continuing search for materials helpful to increasing the health of my congregation I have come across a piece I would like to share with my brothers and sisters in the PCUSA. On the Web site for the Evangelical Free Church (www.efca.org) there is a section dealing with church health. It includes their list of 10 Leading Indicators of a Healthy Church, a survey that can be used to measure the health of an individual congregation and resources for becoming healthier. I strongly encourage ministers, elders and laity alike to take a look at these resources. John Judson San Antonio, Texas Stated Clerk should support Alabama's chief justice August 25, 2003 Since our Stated Clerk is so experienced at writing "friend of the court" briefs, why doesn't he write one on behalf of Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore, who is about to be removed from office because he insists on displaying the Ten Commandments in his court house? The clerk's brief might point out that our founding fathers rejected an established national religion, but that they believed in a universal, rational, moral law built into the universe by its Creator. They believed that the Ten Commandments were the most perfect expression of that law, and that recognizing their universal validity did not establish any particular religion. He might quote the Apostle Paul, who said that Gentiles who are "without the Torah," but "who do by nature what the law requires" are blessed by God (and are just as much "without excuse" as Jews who have the written law, because they have the law written on their hearts). The First Amendment was written in an age when "the laws of nature and of nature's God" were recognized. New discoveries like the law of gravity were called "laws" precisely because they had a universal application, analogous to that of the moral law recognized by reason. Justice Moore is fighting for the truth that the universal natural law expressed in the Ten Commandments is the foundation of all laws enacted by human governments. People of all religions, not just Jews and Christians, should be closing ranks behind him. Mr. Stated Clerk, I look forward to your amicus curiae brief! Rev. Ernest Williams Stated Supply Pastor First Presbyterian Church Donna, Texas Non-Biblical garbage filters down August 25, 2003 How much longer can I be a Presbyterian? I think this pretty well sums up anything I could possibly say. What is happening to the Presbyterian Church? I, for one, will not stay if this sort of non-Biblical garbage filters down to our small rural churches. Connie Smith PFR responds to Wheeler, others August 22, 2003 John H. Adams's August 19 article about Barbara Wheeler and the four Layman Online letters of August 20 provide a delightful opportunity for Presbyterians For Renewal (PFR) to illustrate again our unchanged values. We thank The Layman Online for occasioning this circumstance. First, Barbara Wheeler's naming PFR part of "the great middle of the church" last January sounded like a pleasant acknowledgement of the respect the bulk of the church has accorded PFR – and could subtly imply that Covenant Network wanted to posture itself alongside that great number. We warmly invite the storied "great middle" to join PFR in actively defending our Confessions and Constitution against encroachment and in upholding our union in Christ. But since Wheeler obviously does not speak for PFR, we'll stand by PFR President Jack Haberer's statements instead. (Wheeler's speech, by the way, is rather generous and deserves reading in its entirety, even though PFR finds several points of contention.) Second, Debbie Morrison is "praying that PFR stand firm." Thank you, Debbie! Have no fear. What PFR stands for has not changed and is not changing. And we have some of the best resources to help fellow Presbyterians remain steadfast in their defense of the faith. Third, Loren Golden's letter offers ripe opportunity to examine the inference that PFR is "willing to grant that some who say that trusting in the resurrection of the crucified Lord is not absolutely necessary to be a Christian are, in fact, Christians." PFR is definitely not willing to grant that! But there's a crucial distinction to make here: PFR is unabashedly willing, like the Apostle Paul, to speak with anyone, that we "might by all means save some. [We] do it all for the sake of the gospel, so that [we] might share its blessings" (1 Cor 9:22b-23). If we would only brusquely dismiss rather than seriously engage those who differ greatly from us, how will they ever be influenced? Fourth, Dan Reuter illustrates how pesky communication can get. He assumes Wheeler is using the term "political grandstanding" to put down "opponents." But Wheeler's talk, it seems, blames the "political grandstanding" on provocateurs within her own camp. Our side she charges with siphoning scarce resources into judicial proceedings. That's equal-opportunity criticism! Negative expectations make it so easy to leap to conclusions about what others say and why they say it. PFR has experienced such bitter fruit, and, no doubt, we have lamentably dished some out. However, PFR conscientiously wills restraint and goodwill in interpreting others' words and intents. We consider such intellectual charity a cornerstone of our ministry style. Fifth, Keith Johnston writes with passion and perception, but perhaps gets hung up on: (a) PFR's call to "pray without prejudice." Does that mean to pray without purpose? No. PFR believes God answers prayers, and we simply want people to pray that God's will be done – not ours, not some other group's, but God's will, as Jesus taught. We who understand that God wills holiness have a pretty good idea of how our Sovereign God will answer that prayer, and we would be plenty happy to have anyone thus praying! Thank you, Keith; we've needed to make our meaning much clearer. (b) The word co-opted. That word doesn't appear in Wheeler's January manuscript. Writer Jack Adams introduces the concept while describing a 1998 Wheeler talk. Spirited interchange among people with opposing convictions needn't lead inevitably to being co-opted. PFR, like bold Presbyterian evangelists, will gladly engage in interchange – giving up nothing, while using every opportunity to persuade others. PFR does not fear being co-opted, because we know to Whom we belong, and it sure isn't the Covenant Network! There you have it: A case study on the quirks of communication and a reminder of what PFR believes and practices for the renewal of the PCUSA. We invite all Presbyterians to pray for and join the effort. James D. Berkley PFR Issues Ministry Director Bellevue, Wash. What does theology mean for Wheeler? August 22, 2003 Back in 1998, Ms. Wheeler stated that her adulthood entry into the Presbyterian Church was motivated by our "theology of church." I suspect I am not alone in wondering what that means for her. Many of my former seminary student colleagues, many from non-Presbyterian backgrounds, were attracted to the democratic aspects of our polity. This allows for "activists" to exploit the apathy and ignorance of main stream Presbyterianism. Loren Golden has thrown out an interesting challenge. Where do Jack Haberer and Presbyterians For Renewal stand? Is the resurrection "negotiable?" If it is, what kind of renewal are they hoping for? Remember the old saying: "You cannot run with the hares, and hunt with the hounds." Pastor Jerry J. Voss Millbrook Church Fresno, Calif. The critical issue is trust August 22, 2003 To comment further on Dr. Barbara Wheeler, I'm reminded of an experience at my church, where she came to preach a couple of years ago. In her sermon, she ripped into the conservatives of the Presbyterian Church in no uncertain terms and strongly implied that if you didn't agree with her opinions, you were obviously not on the side of justice and love. A number of us in the congregation were offended by this laying down of the "party line." While I agreed with some of her points, I resented being told, by implication, that I had to march in lockstep with her point of view. The irony of this is that only a few weeks later, she published a letter, I think in The Presbyterian Outlook, that called on us to treat those who disagreed with us non-judgmentally if we were to find common ground. And I would remember that she is a leader in an organization that has openly advocated equivocation as a means of evading the requirements of the Book of Order. I admit that the picture I've built up, fairly or unfairly, is that Dr. Wheeler is a spinmeister whose main criterion for her words is expediency, whatever can be made to sound convincing but whose intent is to advance her particular agenda. That's how I would read this latest speech. One of the important issues for our church, if we are to remain a church, is not just harmony, consensus or even love. It is more basic than that. The issue is trust. Sadlly enough, it is often those who have the highest of intentions and motives who are most tempted to excuse deception in the name of their cause. But if I were to meet Dr. Wheeler, the first question I would have for her is "Why should I trust you? The basis has to be something more substantial than telling me what I want to hear or that will make me feel good." If there is not a fundamental level of trust, then all the rest of our gestures are ultimately fruitless and there is no basis for community, no matter how good we are at packaging our messages or how purely we rate our own intentions. Bruce M. Williams San Francisco, Calif. Wheeler should endorse 'Graceful Separation' August 22, 2003 Perhaps Covenant Network board member Barbara Wheeler of Auburn Theological Seminary would be prepared to endorse a "Graceful Separation." She has a clear understanding of the theological crevasse over ordination standards. Clearly (and unfortunately), it's our theology in the PCUSA that divides us. What better reason is there for enthusiastically supporting graceful separation? Under graceful separation, Wheeler and the "great middle of the church" could do away with the turmoil caused by the "super-activists and their sympathizers." And those of us who proudly serve God in an orthodox manner can gracefully leave with our pride and our property. David Morrison Hebron United Presbyterian Church Pittsburgh, Pa.

August 2003 letters, page 2 Home · News · PLC Publications · The Layman Online Reviews · Archives· History of the Lay Committee · Feedback · Links