The Rev. Lane Stephenson, who was a commissioner at General Assembly, has written with a couple questions for Gene TeSelle, who authored Witherspoon's brief report on the Assembly.

His note:

As a minister commissioner to the past General Assembly, and a member of the Health Issues committee, I was intrigued to read Eugene TeSelle's report saying that some members of the committee "threatened to create parliamentary hell during the report of the Health Issues committee if their 'experts' were not allowed to be on the platform to answer questions."

I believe the request had to do simply with whether a member of the committee who voted with the majority decision could present the report to the General Assembly on that particular overture, something that I understand is considered fairly routine and which is allowable by General Assembly procedures.

There is something else that perhaps you can help me out with. In listening to the report of the Church Overtures Committee [Church Orders Committee? --  WebWeaver], I heard several commissioners, including the committee moderator, refer to a quote from the Authoritative Interpretation supposedly saying that homosexuals are "maladjusted, unreliable, incompetent, irreligious, and promiscuous." I have not been able to find that quote in the AI. Perhaps you can locate it for me?

Lane Stephenson
French Camp, MS.

Gene TeSelle responds:

I think that you are referring to something else. There were threats about a floor fight.

You are right about the derogatory language--it was not in the AI but in the report of the committee, as a characterization of some attitudes toward gays and lesbians. Several of us caught this during the report and discussion on the floor.

[7-15-04]

We have received a note from Deborah Milam Berkley, a member of First Presbyterian Church of Bellevue (WA), criticizing some of the comments made by Gene TeSelle in his Witherspoon report on General Assembly. She writes:

I have a comment about some remarks in Gene TeSelle's report on General Assembly. Here is what he wrote:

The Presbyterian Right still wants to take over the church, its program agencies, and the Foundation. Its funders still expect it to take a conservative line in politics and economics. In the meantime, its efforts are likely to go in two directions. They will attack General Assembly programs and promote parachurch organizations like Presbyterians for Renewal and the "validated mission organizations," in the hope that they will supersede the General Assembly agencies. And they will devote even more effort to "wedge issues" around sexuality and reproduction that have the best chance of winning over some moderates in the church.

Leaving aside the question of unfair accusations of political and economic motivations, which I have brought up with you before (why can't you understand that people who disagree with you can be purely theologically motivated, with no thoughts at all in their heads of "wedge issues"?), I would like to focus on the funding accusation. Specifically, Mr. TeSelle has mentioned Presbyterians for Renewal in this context: that they are being promoted by "the Presbyterian Right", with politically- and economically-motivated funding. However, PFR is funded by donations from individuals and churches, and, what is more, has had to tighten its belt somewhat of late. (Any appearance of large sums of money in their income in the past consisted of fees that were collected for and then spent on youth conferences or "Wee Kirk" conferences.)

I would like Mr. TeSelle to clarify, with documentation, what he means by the funders of "the Presbyterian Right", in particular with respect to PFR, or else to withdraw his claim of politically- and economically-motivated funding.

Thank you.

Deborah Milam Berkley

A note from your WebWeaver:

You might be interested to see some opinions recently expressed by Ms. Berkley's husband, James Berkley, the Issues Ministry Director of Presbyterians for Renewal. One of his recent "blogs" goes after Michael Adee and More Light Presbyterians.