An open letter to the Witherspoon Society:

Your new policy statement on the ordination question includes this sentence:

"And we shall point out that the real goal of those who oppose ordination for all those who are called is not 'purity,' but power - the power to define the being of another person, to exclude on the basis of that definition, and to force the community of God's people into a mold of one's own design."

[WebWeaver's note:  We've revised the sentence now, so you won't find this version in our statement.]

Please do not insult your fellow Presbyterians by attributing to them such base motives. It is most illiberal of you to believe that people who disagree with you must be mean-spirited.

Deborah Milam Berkley
Member, First Pres. Bellevue, WA

The Berkley Blog

Not particularly official notes by PFR Issues Ministry Director Jim Berkley

Friday, September 12, 2003

Those fractured, persistent "progressives"

A new Witherspoon Society policy on gay ordination points out just how much "progressives" are fighting among themselves. Apparently the Witherspoon Society is still madder than hops about the Covenant Network (CovNet) saying "Not now. Just wait" at General Assembly this year about trying to remove G-6.0106b ("fidelity and chastity"). The new Witherspoon policy doesn't mention CovNet by name, but it obviously is barbed against them. For instance:

The Witherspoonies write: "While we will not be controlled by any other group in this struggle, we will be guided by those who are most deeply engaged in it, and whose lives are most deeply at stake." In other words, they won't listen to once-removed CovNet, but rather to the gay/lesbian/bisexual/transgendered (GLBT) persons, themselves.

The Witherspoonies write: "We believe that paths of delay (however well-intended to ease conflict and allow for gradual change) are a fundamental denial of justice, and so must be resisted." That's targeted directly at CovNet arguments.

The Witherspoonies write: "We will continue to urge that ... all other [progressive] groups avoid acting in direct opposition to [GLBT people]," which is what they have accused a patronizing CovNet of doing.

Both CovNet and Witherspoonies oppose our constitutional standards and want to remove them. So why the cat fight?

The CovNet folks are more politically savvy and patient, more realistic and sly. Some are also more altruistic, not wanting to split or destroy the church in a bluster. They can see that yet another inevitable crushing defeat in a direct vote would actually set their cause back even further, and so they counsel patience, while plying persuasion and even subverting things a little here and there. The Witherspoonies, More Light Presbyterians, That All May Freely Serve, Shower of Stoles, and many gay Presbyterians just want to get it on, no matter what the cost or fallout. Yesterday is not soon enough for what they consider to be justice.

So the "progressive" camp is in an uproar. The CovNet is experiencing withering friendly fire.

Those of us on the other side of the aisle might gain a little wry amusement out of this "progressive" smackdown if it were not for another reality made abundantly clear in the Witherspoon statement: They plan to be persistently, stubbornly, relentlessly, stultifyingly, aggravatingly bullheaded in their insistence on rewriting God's morality. "We therefore affirm that above all we must persist in our efforts to move our church toward justice - every year, at every General Assembly, in as many ways as possible," they intone. I wonder which part of "No" they don't understand.

In addition, they indicate a strategy: attack the Authoritative Interpretations that have stood us such good stead for 25 years. Why? It's simple: "Authoritative Interpretations can be eliminated by General Assembly action, without being sent to the presbyteries" they reason. It's the old end-run tactic. Pure politics. The fact that a large majority of Presbyterians and three-quarters of the presbyteries are fundamentally opposed to what they want matters not. They want their way and will pervert the will of the presbyteries if they can but hijack another General Assembly.

Presbyterians of decency and honor, take note. That is dirty politics, not the Presbyterian way.

// posted by Jim @ Friday, September 12, 2003