We received this note on Feb. 2, 2004.

[Quoting from our report:]

An amendment was then offered by the Rev. Pete Peery, pastor at First Presbyterian Church in Asheville. It would have affirmed the COM recommendation that Williamson's ministry not be validated, while softening the action by continuing him on the roll of presbytery as a member at large. Williamson and his defenders argued against the amendment, apparently wanting a clear action by the presbytery to reject him and his ministry. According to the Layman Online, Mr. Williamson himself denounced the amendment as an "oily compromise."

Does Mr. Williamson really not understand how comments like this damage his credibility? I see this amendment as a pastoral attempt to keep him in relationship with his presbytery. "Oily compromise"? I think Mr. Williamson does indeed work outside the bounds of the church in order to destroy it. Sad.

Molly Douthett
Waterford, VA

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Barbara Bever of Kansas City, Missouri, comments on the action of Western North Carolina Presbytery in light of current issues in Heartland Presbytery:

What is happening in Heartland involves a financial pinch that has become severe in the last 2 years and the Presbytery council which decided to pass a resolution that it would no longer sign off on applications to borrow money (CDC or other sources) nor would it sign off on applications either for Presbytery funds or

General Assembly funds for any church which was not paying it's per-capita. There were a couple of other routine requirements, like making and paying a mission pledge of some amount, keeping their terms of call paperwork up to date and their statistical reports and the like, generally keeping the tie-ties tied and "fully participating" in the life of the larger church.

You can imagine the hue and cry that ensued when this was presented to the Presbytery, and one of the larger suburban churches which wants to build and needs the Presbytery's okey-dokey to borrow the money, all the while withholding their per-capita in protest of whatever their current issue is, has filed a judicial case against the Presbytery, alleging I am not sure what.(Imagine!)

One of the pastors had the "chutzpah" to stand up in a Presbytery meeting and say that the answer to the whole problem was "just don't pay" the per-capita (!) Right, tell the General Assembly that the whole of Heartland Presbytery supports this" political protest" about whatever the current issue is. I, for one, think not, thank you very much.

I have had the experience of the shoe being on the other foot, a misworded ad in the paper made it appear that the whole Presbytery was supporting something which they were not. One of those situations where the perception serves to create the reality, just like this "just don't pay it" approach would do. And no one yelled louder about this than these very self-same people who are now claiming that they are being discriminated against. Funny how that happens.

One wants to say, oh, do come along, what is sauce for the proverbial goose. . .

The larger issue, of course, is really about the structure of the connectional nature of the denomination, and, this is coming up in Heartland again in February when Presbytery next meets. I do hope it does not become like the ordination issue and just remain chronically unresolved, but it does look like it might.

If Williamson and his co-religionists succeed in keeping presbytery after presbytery tangled up in these kinds of discussions, what happens to the denomination, does it just fall in on itself like a house of cards.

Dear God, save the church from these people.

Best regards,

Barbara Bever
Kansas City, Missouri

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Do you have thoughts or comments to share?
Just send a note!