Letters to the Editor

I wish to comment on your lead article (September/October) by Robert L. Howard, Esquire that Amendment A will create legal exposure for the PCUSA. I agree with the law as quoted by Mr. Howard under his legal theories section of the article. However, I disagree with his application of the law to the facts recited in the article.

(1) The so-called legal exposure to which the article refers highlights the $119 million verdict against the Catholic Diocese in Dallas, Texas, for "its handling of a priest who allegedly sexually abused boys at three (3) churches." Priests in the Catholic church are obviously all of the male gender as are the "boys." These priests and those like them are pedophiles. Pedophilia applies to any adult, heterosexual, homosexual, or bisexual. It is scientifically inaccurate to equate pedophilia with homosexuality, the subject matter of Amendment A.

(2) The overwhelming medical and psychiatric evidence is that homosexuality is genetic and inherited and is a human condition over which the homosexual has no control.

(3) My colleague states that "in the real world of high-dollar litigation, the only ‘safe sex’ is fidelity in the covenant of marriage between one man and one woman or chastity in singleness." I would have to answer that "he who is without sin may cast the first stone" and you will have few throwers.

(4) It is no wonder and tragic that the suicide rate among gay people is among the highest in the country, when their own church teaches that they are unacceptable to serve their church and by inference are to be shunned by their parents and those whom they have been taught to love and respect.

(5) I believe my colleague, Mr. Howard, has gotten his religious and political views confused.

James Evans, Harrisburg, PA

Mr. Howard’s Response:

1. Our Constitution has to do with all sexual sin, both homo and hetero. That’s all the more reason to reaffirm it by rejecting "A."

2. The medical evidence is neither clear nor overwhelming as to the causes of sexual orientation. But through God’s grace humans do have the ability to control their behavior regardless of cause or the age of awareness.

3. The Bible clearly reveals that we are all sinners, but in Christ that nature can always be redeemed. Defense of claims does not require being without sin. It does require that our constitutional standards do not encourage sin.

4. The Christian ethic, mediated through our constitutional ordination standards, does not encourage suicide, nor does it encourage parental shunning of children who violate God’s law. It does call for guidance and discipline as expressions of God’s love mediated through parental responsibility.

5. Standing with the Reformed Tradition, I believe one’s religious views ought to influence one’s political views.

The Presbyterian Layman has declared (Sept/Oct) that the "source" of Amendment A is the majority report of the four-year study of human sexuality – as though that document defined the meaning of fidelity and integrity. This will come as a surprise to those who formulated Amendment A in the Polity Committee at the 1997 General Assembly; to those who voted for Amendment A as members of the General Assembly; and to those in the church who view Amendment A as a better way of stating Amendment B’s concern for personal morality.

What really happened in 1991 was the beginning of a dialogue which still continues. In response to the furor surrounding the Sexuality Study, the 1991 Assembly’s special committee recommended not to adopt either the majority or the minority report. Instead it developed a set of affirmations, prepared a pastoral letter to be sent to all congregations, and outlined a study process … The Assembly was satisfied with the fragile consensus that the committee had worked out, and the dialogue has continued.

Eugene TeSelle, Nashville, TN.

Editor’s Note: Mr. TeSelle’s memory is selective. The 1991 Assembly voted overwhelmingly (534 to 31) not to adopt the Human Sexuality report whose "justice-love" theme declared that the consensual nature of an adult sexual relationship, not whether or not it occurs within the covenant of marriage, determines its moral quality. The report asserted that neither homosexual behavior nor heterosexual adultery are precluded by this new "standard." All that matters is that the participating parties freely decide that their relationship is one of "integrity." This "standard," clearly rejected by the 1991 GA is the philosophical basis for Amendment A’s endorsement of "all relationships" that are characterized by "fidelity and integrity" as defined by those who engage in them.

Terry Schlossberg, reporting on the Presbyterian Women’s Triennium in July of this year, has misrepresented the activities and aims of the conference and of the organization itself. It is absolutely not true that PW promotes lesbian practices!

As for secret workshops, nonsense! We were free to attend any workshop we wished. These were WORKshops, where we were encouraged to discuss any topic. The presence of reporters would have destroyed the free exchange.

Peggy Bates, Brick, NJ

Praise the Lord! Louisville is finally being touched due to the efforts of the Presbyterian Layman. Why else would they have begun mailing the new "Presbyterians Being Faithful to Jesus Christ?" Please keep the Layman coming.

Grace Newland, Ney, OH

I would like to see some balance in your reporting. Your coverage of "Amendment A" goes beyond what I have seen before in your one-sided editorializing. Surely you would agree that people of faith may have a viewpoint different from that which you express. The only challenging views I find in the Layman are found in the letters to the editor.

Kevin Scott, Pittsburgh, PA

A long-time member of the Presbyterian Church (USA), I have served the denomination at four levels. I have observed that the farther you get away from the local church, the farther you find yourself drifting from Jesus Christ and his teachings. When I sat in on council meetings I heard much talk around the question, "Why are our members and churches leaving the denomination?" Then the discussion turned to blessing sex outside of marriage, and I knew at least part of the answer to their question. I suppose highway robbery will be sanctified in the next round.

Wendell Carter, Denver, CO.

I believe we are all God’s children. Judgment should be left between God and the person who has sinned. We are not to judge one another. As Presbyterians we have free choice. God is the judge, not you, so let God take care of it.

Marian MacNeill, Houston, TX

After two years of reading the Layman, I am finally driven to comment. Has the Church lost its senses? Must we embrace, in the love of Christ Jesus, persons who make statements such as "… God exists three inches below my navel?" Year after year such drivel continues, ad nauseum. This is nothing but pure deconstruction. What evidence is necessary to understand that the devil is about? In what guise will we expect him to appear, as Darth Vader with the letter "D" on his helmet?

Bud Poulson, Palo Alto, CA

When we learned that the Moderator of the Presbyterian Church (USA) was coming to town, we never dreamed that we would be visited by royalty! But there she was, proclaiming herself to be the "queen of the Presbyterian Church" in a speech to several hundred people in West Lake Hills on Sunday night. I hoped that only several hundred would hear her make such a claim, but no such luck. It was reported in Austin’s press.

According to the American Statesman, Moderator Brown made the comparison between her position and a constitutional monarch because "the prime minister takes care of the work … and the queen is the ambassador, the person who goes around and does the ceremonial things and all of the connecting people-to-people things, and that’s what I do."

So now the Presbyterian Church (USA) has a queen. John Knox, where are you when we need you?

Stella Wilson, Austin, TX

Hooray for Moderator Brown! Finally a leader who dares to tell it like it is. Over the span of my forty years in parish ministry the Layman has been the most divisive influence I have known.

M. James Bower, Anderson, IN.

The remarks by the moderator, Ms. Patricia Brown, in your November/December issue are indefensible. They are also typical of the arrogant and high-handed attitude taken by so many PCUSA bureaucrats and officials.

Earl Tilford, Jr. Carlisle, PA