Dear Editor:

Amendment A has been defeated but the Church must continue to address a larger theological issue: Will the Church recognize apodictic truths or will it embrace nescience? Amendment A permitted each governing body to make its own decision with "guidance" from, but not adherence to, scriptural and constitutional standards. The implicit assumptions were that "scriptural and
constitutional standards" were malleable and ambiguous and each body could divine for itself their meanings and requirements. This meant the difficult question on homosexuality could be avoided through the artifice of local choice. The Church decided not to take this path even if comity and diversity had to be sacrificed.

I notice in a number of letters and statements written by proponents of Amendment A that the authors were "saddened" and/or "disappointed" by the decision because certain members of the congregation could not fully participate in the life of the Church. This expression of emotion should have no place in the discussion or the decision. The questions about one's feelings or the consequences to the Church are irrelevant. The only issue is whether the Church will unequivocally define and recognize sin irrespective of how the worldly culture judges its decision.

John Calvin hated "mixture" as it meant disorder and unintelligibility. The positive corollary to mixture was "boundary" as it separated one thing from another. To Calvin, boundaries were the creations of God and Scripture was a God given system of boundaries that were imposed on humanity. Calvin said, "God, by his providence, reduces to order that which is confused." In the tradition of Calvin, the Church has re-confirmed a "boundary." However, that does not obviate the need for the Church and its members to continue to love the sinner.