Asking for evidence

Deborah Milam Berkley, of 1st Presbyterian Church, Bellevue, WA, has sent this note, which has also been published on PresbyWeb.

Click here for a response from Trina Zelle, a member of the Witherspoon executive committee and a pastor in El Paso, Texas.

Deborah Milam Berkley responds with more detailed argument.

So what is really evidence?
Trina Zelle responds to Deborah Milam Berkley's comments

And your WebWeaver offers a mild thought.

Click here for an earlier PNS report on Bos' sermon

The "new Auburn affirmation" that is being proposed was initially called for in a sermon by The Rev. David Bos, which can be read here.

The Rev. Bos makes some claims in this sermon that I would like to see supported. I have asked him about this, and I also posted a question about it on the TAMFS site, but no one has ever responded. So I am opening the question to a wider group. Here is the section in question from his sermon: "...in each generation there are those who find it convenient and tempting to try to use the devotion of Christ and the institutions of the church to advance a reactionary political and religious agenda.. These persons are really not interested in exposing their agenda to the light of the unadorned Gospel of Christ and the basic charter of their faith any more than they are interested in hearing the commentary of scientists and other intellectuals.

They want it assumed that their reactionary version of the faith is true so that they can get on with their political agenda. They see the coherence of reactionary religion with reactionary politics as evidence of the truth of each. Experience has proven that it is useless to attempt to argue, make peace or moderate this unholy alliance. They will simply ignore or not admit anything that will question or interfere with their agenda." These are rather severe claims. What I would like to know is this: exactly who is he talking about? I would like to have names of specific people or groups, along with documentation that these claims are true. And it would be best if it came from an unbiased source, and not from a biased source such as "A Moment to Decide." Surely the Rev. Bos and his supporters will want to give evidence for this statement. I am sure they do not wish to appear to have said something that has no basis in fact. However, I do not know anyone like this in the Presbyterian Renewal groups. So if there is no proof forthcoming, it will certainly seem likely that the Rev. Bos's statement is in fact untrue. Deborah Milam Berkley Member, 1st Presbyterian Church Bellevue, WA

Click here if you'd like to send a response for the WebWeaver to share here.

Trina Zelle responds [12-22-00]

Once again progressives are challenged to offer "proof" to back up their arguments -- i.e. Bos' Auburn Declaration. There's just one problem. The documented proofs that have already been offered have been dismissed out of hand as "biased." So what's a fair-minded liberal to do? Create something out of nothing the way the Hebrew children had to struggle to make bricks with no straw?

This is reminiscent of a previous challenge that we prove our case for inclusiveness using a fundamentalist (and most un-Presbyterian) interpretation of scripture. Ms. Berkley's request for proof amounts to gagging a person and then criticizing them for mumbling.

Trina Zelle

Ms. Berkley responds to Trina Zelle:

[published here on 1-10-01]

I'm sorry that I just stated that A Moment to Decide is biased without giving evidence for what I claimed. Considering my request, that was most inconsistent of me.

The reason I say that A Moment to Decide is biased is that, although it uses facts, it assumes motives behind those facts, and it interprets the facts in light of those assumed motives. However, it in fact incorrectly assumes what those motives are. So it is not proof, and it is especially unacceptable to those of us, such as me, who are unjustly accused of political motives.

Here's an analogy to illustrate why it is not proof: Suppose a book were published by those opposed to same-sex unions, and in this book they recorded many statements by various people and groups saying that they supported same-sex unions, including statements by group X. that they were for same-sex unions. And suppose the book also said that supporters of same-sex unions were only politically motivated, even though that is not true. In particular, suppose that group X is only theologically motivated in their support for same-sex unions. Suppose then that person A were to give a public speech in which they said that people are only politically motivated if they support same-sex unions, and then person B responded, "Name someone who is only politically motivated," and person A said, "Group X. It is a fact that group X is for same-sex unions, as is shown by their statements on the question, and this book says that motivations for that are only political."

But person A would only have proved that group X was for same-sex unions, and that the book had made a claim about what motivation for that is, but person A would not have proved what group X's motivation actually was.

At any rate, if there are people of the sort described by the Rev. Bos--politically reactionary, uninterested in shining the light of the gospel on their agenda, uninterested in intellectual and scientific commentary, unholy--and if there are enough of them that they are a threat to the Presbyterian church, then there should be abundant evidence outside of A Moment to Decide. If evidence cannot be found anywhere else, that would certainly not lend credibility to the book.

What would I count as evidence? Statements, made by individuals or groups, that they are only interested in a reactionary political agenda, or that they do not care what the gospel really says that would relate to their agenda, or that they do not have any interest in ANY intellectual or scientific commentary.

Deborah Milam Berkley
Member, 1st Pres. Church of Bellevue (WA)

So what is really evidence?

Trina Zelle responds to Deborah Milam Berkley's comments:

And a thought from your WebWeaver:
I don't really want to get involved in this kind of endless debate, except to wonder whether Ms. Berkley may be oversimplifying more than a bit, as she imputes views both to A Moment to Decide and the David Bos which they have never expressed. Has either of them ever really said of conservative Presbyterians that "they are only interested in a reactionary political agenda, or that they do not care what the gospel really says that would relate to their agenda, or that they do not have any interest in ANY intellectual or scientific commentary"?
Let's face it: Many of us, on both the right and the left sides of the Presbyterian Church, often feel we have been misunderstood, attacked, our views and motives distorted, and much more. Is there any way to move beyond this kind of "You're meaner than I am" sort of argument to find anything we can seek together for our church, our world ... our children?
Doug King