Response to Louisville Volume 34, Number 6 Posted October 5, 2001 Mr. Zane K. Buxton Assistant Stated Clerk Office of the General Assembly 100 Witherspoon Street Louisville, Kentucky 40202-1396 Dear Mr. Buxton: Your letter of August 31 arrived and I was saddened by its contents. I guess I expected something more pastoral and gracious from the highest office in our national church. Especially in view of the fact that we were expressing a heartfelt concern. At first I thought about ignoring it, not wanting to enter into a “war of words,” but then realized that to be fair to you, our session, those in the “Confessing Church” and myself, I had to respond as prayerfully and honestly as possible. Our letter was sent to your office from our session, on behalf of the congregation, who has, like many congregations, been wounded and scarred over pronouncements made and actions taken by our national church over a period of years. It would seem that our national leaders would welcome the fact that we, like many other congregations, have finally overcome our timidity and found our voice to respond to these growing concerns, rather than simply complaining. The church in Pennsylvania and the “Layman” that you refer to in your letter are only the catalysts for the concerns about which we have written your office. Our commitment is not to them but to the “Confessing Church” which is coming together simply, and profoundly, to say, in essence, “enough is enough – Jesus Christ is Lord.” The concerns we have already expressed in our letter to your office underscore this. Our national leadership would do well to search their hearts about their defensiveness regarding such concerns. You are talking to your family, not your enemy. The intention of the “Confessing Church” is to remain in the family. Because the “Confessing Church” is a movement, it is not intended to create a faction but to give the wounded and scarred within the church a voice. Others appear to have found their voice. Do we not have the same right? I believe you know who the “others” are, and they have certainly gone outside the boundaries of our judicatories to express themselves. It is not my intention to call names but simply to ask for justice on the part of our leaders. Give us the loving consideration we deserve, not a defensive lecture that is meant to intimidate us. Prayerfully consider our concerns and respond on the basis of what they are rather than what you think they are. You see, you do not know the heart-searching and agony that our session and congregation went through to become a “Confessing Church.” It was not a knee-jerk, flippant decision. It took several meetings in which differences were aired, concerns were articulated, and fears were voiced. Like most congregations, there are those among us whose lives have been touched by loved ones and friends whose beliefs and lifestyles are opposed to their own. It has been heart-wrenching, in some cases, to arrive at the decisions we have, but those decisions have been unanimous. It has not been anyone’s wish to make enemies or start a war; only to stand up for the truth of what it means to say “Jesus is Lord.” I don’t think you understand just how cruel your pronouncements are that somehow we are “crafting a litmus test for faith and faithfulness” rather than “simply giving witness to the good news in Christ.” A whole lot of prayer went into this decision. I am deeply saddened by the spin you have put on our heart-felt convictions. Your attempt to belittle and cheapen them is, to say the least, misleading and factious. We have done what you have inferred we have not done, and that is to simply give witness to the good news in Christ. To say that our “Confession” is no different from what our church officers have already affirmed in their ordination vows is to miss the point. The concerns we have expressed are a response to the latest action of the General Assembly, which is to do away with those affirmations. Surely you understand this! The Confessing Church Movement is a witness to this. It is the last straw. We would not be true to our heartfelt belief that “Jesus is Lord,” and cowardly, not to speak up. We have been left with no other choice. It is also difficult for me to understand the spin you have put on our addition of one “tenet” to our “Confession” since we are not joining a secret society or even an organized entity. We have become a part of a movement. What we are doing is an open witness to the fact that “Jesus is Lord” and all that implies. The addition of one affirmation (we have four rather than three, as you have indicated) simply strengthens the intention of the other three as well as underscoring the nature of the movement. We are guided by our loyalty to the Scripture and allegiance to Jesus Christ, not by uniformity of words. Your further comments about omissions of exact wording of Scripture, when the intention of Scripture is obvious, gives every appearance of grasping at straws. Especially when many who profess to lead us in our national church take unusual and sweeping liberties with the Scripture. I close with the observation that I have written this letter quite on my own, not at the Session’s request. I will, of course, share it with them at our next meeting. I have written it prayerfully and carefully and feel no rancor. You are in my prayers. As you seek Him, may our Lord Jesus Christ guide your heart and mind. In Christ, Douglas M. Scott Interim Pastor Westminster Presbyterian Church Cape Girardeau, Mo. Editor’s Note: Shortly after this exchange of letters, Zane Buxton announced on Sept. 12 that he was leaving his position as assistant stated clerk in the Office of the General Assembly to serve as interim synod executive for the Synod of Rocky Mountains.

Respond to this article

Home · News · PLC Publications · The Presbyterian Layman Online Reviews · Archives · History of the Lay Committee · Feedback · Links