Comments for Why I oppose the proposed Authoritative Interpretation of G-6.0108 at http://pres-outlook.net , comment 1 to 3 out of 3 comments http://pres-outlook.net Fri, 19 Mar 2010 10:38:41 +0100 FeedCreator 1.7.3 http://pres-outlook.net/opinion/editorials/1528.html#comment-2269 After reading both articles by two people whom I admire (Koster and Doughty))I offer the following comments: To Steve: I appreciate the process of discernment and its value. Along with many people, we have been discerning the issue of ordination of homosexuals for over 30 years. I have changed over those years from indifference to advocacy and I feel that God has led me all the way. To Ed: I think the recommendations of the GA committee on the surface looks like a win-win, but you make your points very well and I now can see where it will create more places and levels where disagreement can take place. That we do not need. Thank you both for your wise words - Judy Borchardt Tue, 25 Apr 2006 12:00:00 +0100 http://pres-outlook.net/opinion/editorials/1528.html#comment-2265 I have known, liked and respected Ed Koster for many years, ever since he helped teach a New Members Class at First Presbyterian Church of Ann Arbor, Michigan, when I became a member there back in January, 1992. I have always appreciated his intellectual integrity even when we have come to different conclusions on specific issues, such as ordination. I believe Ed has again demonstrated this kind of integrity in his article for the Outlook. Thank you, Ed. - John Erthein Mon, 24 Apr 2006 12:00:00 +0100 http://pres-outlook.net/opinion/editorials/1528.html#comment-2264 I am profoundly grateful to Ed Koster, the stated clerk of the presbytery of Detroit, for his honest and insightful article opposing the proposed authoritative interpretation of G-6.0108 even though, on substantive grounds, he would favor a change in our Constitution regarding ordination standards. I have been hoping that someone who, like him, favors amending our Constitution to allow 'local option' in ordination, would have the integrity and insight to express concern and even alarm about what circumventing the amendment process via this new authoritative interpretation would do to the fabric of trust in the PC (USA) and also to our system of Constitutional government. I agree with him that this part of the PUP report is 'the wrong solution' and will, unfortunately, 'make a problem worse.' If a General Assembly via authoritative interpretation, chooses to bypass presbyteries and even overcome the results of the past votes of a majority of these presbyteries to establish the present constitutional standards, the result will be a constitutional crisis and, worse, a crisis in trust. In mid-nineteenth century America, under our federal system of government an attempt by one level of government to 'nullify' Constitutional provisions previously adopted by joint action of governments at various levels resulted in a profound crisis for the Republic. One can only hope that present-day attempts at 'nullification' of the Constitution by a governing body at any level working alone (even when that governing body is General Assembly) will not succeed. If these efforts do succeed, I do not believe they will kill the church, but I believe they will result in a profound loss of trust and confidence in our polity and system of government and in real damage to our life together as we now know it. Yet it is also possible that in the end, if most of what now unites us is polity and no longer the biblical theology of our confessions, the collapse of our polity while highly destructive and avoidable, could cause us in the ruins of a denomination, to desperately seek God's unifying, rebuilding power. Winfield Jones Pearland, Texas - Winfield Jones Mon, 24 Apr 2006 12:00:00 +0100