The Layman – February 2004 Volume 37, Number 1 – Posted February 20, 2004

Character and conduct allegations require a trial with real evidence How do you draw and quarter someone with false allegations, a strategy conceived, conducted and concluded in secrecy – and then tack a smiley face on the process? That’s precisely what the Presbytery of Western North Carolina tried to do – but the final appendage was more sneer than a smile. After hearing a litany of allegations – wholly untrue – against Parker T. Williamson, the presbytery deemed him unfit to labor in the ministry of the Presbyterian Lay Committee but – surprise! – fit to labor in the ministry of the presbytery. ‘An oily compromise’ Williamson called the offer to make him an at-large member of the presbytery “an oily compromise,” and indeed it was. It was a ploy by the presbytery’s leaders, who, realizing Williamson was winning his case in the court of public opinion, sought to wash their hands of providing the forum for impugning his character. An innocent observer might be confused about the presbytery’s position. How can the presbytery say Williamson is OK but his work isn’t? If the unsubstantiated charges against Williamson had a scintilla of merit, the honorable course for presbytery would have been to use the church courts to try to kick Williamson and the men and women who serve as directors of the Presbyterian Lay Committee out of the denomination. Let’s see evidence, not hearsay In fact, Williamson had argued that very point from the beginning. If you must accuse someone of wrongdoing, he said, do it according to the denomination’s rules of discipline. The rules of discipline do not permit the kind of gossip, hearsay, innuendo and false charges that were presented to the presbytery by the Committee on Ministry. The rules of evidence do not allow a minister’s character and conduct to be assassinated without due process. Consider just a few of the assertions made at the presbytery meeting: The Layman Online was accused of “breaking the law” by reporting what happened at a closed-door meeting of the Committee on Ministry. The same speaker also accused the person who talked to the Layman Online of “breaking the law.” There is no such law prohibiting reporters – secular or religious – from interviewing people who attend closed-door meetings and quoting them. There is no law that prevents people who attended such closed-door meetings from talking to reporters unless, of course, the disclosure can breach national security. One speaker, in support of the Committee on Ministry, accused The Layman of misquoting her friend and hurting her feelings. But the speaker didn’t say who was quoted or what she allegedly said. How can an alleged, unattributed quotation possibly be considered evidence? One Committee on Ministry member reported as fact that Alex M. Metherell, who wrote a stinging criticism of the presbytery’s action against the Lay Committee, is a member of the Lay Committee’s board. He is not. For his “evidence,” one minister chose to read from an editorial in The Presbyterian Outlook. The editorial, titled “A Ministry of Fear,” was a virulent attack on Williamson and the Lay Committee. Considering that the editorial sounded more like a temper tantrum than a thoughtful reflection, we didn’t deem it worthy of a response – and still don’t. While commending the editorial by a publication that derives much of its revenue from the denomination, the anti-Williamson forces condemned a 2001 editorial in The Layman titled “An apostate assembly.” One of the key issues at that assembly was its failure to affirm Jesus as Lord of all, the only savior. Public opinion, largely the result of that editorial, led a later General Assembly to recognize the huge error and adopt an orthodox statement affirming that salvation is in Christ alone. Williamson was accused of calling a former moderator of the Presbyterian Church (USA) a communist. That was false. Some of the language of a report by a commission established by the 1994 General Assembly was trotted out as evidence of the Presbyterian Lay Committee’s malfeasance. But the Committee on Ministry ignored the General Assembly’s final disposition of that report. Asked to censure the Lay Committee, the commissioners to the 1995 General Assembly voted overwhelmingly – 520 to 17 – against the commission’s recommendation and then expressed its hope that the matter not come up again. And then there’s the matter of money. The Lay Committee was accused of trying to destroy the Presbyterian Church (USA) through its Declaration of Conscience. Read the statement yourself. (It’s reprinted on page 11). How in the world is calling on Presbyterians prayerfully to consider directing their gifts to ministries that honor Jesus Christ destructive? Careful stewardship is not only a constitutional right but also a Biblical responsibility. Lay Committee’s worldview Some things we’ll confess. The Presbyterian Lay Committee has a worldview, a filter through which it publishes news and commentary about the denomination. That worldview begins with Jesus. He is the Way, the Truth and the Life. There is salvation in none other. The Bible, we believe, is God’s infallible revelation to the church. The law of God should shape the character and conduct of God’s people. Tragically, the worldview of many of the officials and agencies in the Presbyterian Church (USA) is quite different – and its repercussions show up in the pews. Since 1966, the denomination has lost the equivalent of two 500-member congregations a week. Total membership has plummeted from 4.2 million to 2.45 million, a membership loss of 41.7 percent. Meanwhile, some of the denomination’s leaders and agencies have bankrolled pagan rites (Re-Imagining God, 1993); supported leftist causes through the World Council of Churches, National Council of Churches and its Washington Office; sanctioned partial-birth abortion, which is now contrary to national law; refused to discipline officers who openly defy Biblical and constitutional standards; and suggested that Jesus is merely one of many Gods. One denominational study on euthanasia even suggested that Jesus may have committed suicide. So who is on trial? So whose character and conduct should be examined? The Presbytery of Western North Carolina put the wrong person, Williamson, and the wrong ministry, the Presbyterian Lay Committee, on the docket. That’s why the next step is a real trial where real evidence, measured against the standards of our Reformed faith, must be considered.

Respond to this article Index of Layman editorials Home · News · PLC Publications · The Presbyterian Layman Online Reviews · Archives· History of the Lay Committee · Feedback · Links