Dear Editor:

I appreciate Dr. Franch's thoughtful letter.

For the record I would like to indicate that contrary to his statements, I am neither surprised nor offended by some of the responses that I have received, although in tone and content some of them have certainly been dismaying.

Nor do I consider my opponents to be my 'enemies,' as I hope they would also not consider themselves to be.

I'm not sure what Dr. Franch means when he states 'it was upheld by the court,' since as I understand matters the judicial interpretation of what G-6.0106b actually means is still very much pending.

I can understand how people who for years assumed that the meaning of G-6.0106b was crystal clear are now puzzled, or even shocked, to find that it is not. I hope that over time they will eventually refrain from the kinds of conspiracy theories and imputations of bad faith that have been evident in some letters to Presbyweb.

I certainly think it would have been preferable if, over all these years, our church had been confronted with a more carefully drafted and non-veiled statement of the 'old-guard traditionalist' position (if I may put it that way). On the other hand, I think there is reason to believe that, in that case, the broad center of our church would not have been persuaded to endorse it.

Many people, including myself, are concerned about the erosion of sexual morality in our culture. They are concerned about what this erosion means for our families and for our children (and not least, when people think clearly about it, what it often means for the well-being of women). I believe that these justifiable anxieties, when coupled with the studied ambiguities of G-6.0106b, played a significant role in its passage.

I do not understand my proposed interpretation of G-6.0106b to be merely 'technical' or 'academic.' It seems of the first importance to me, for example, to interpret a term like 'chastity' in a way that is fully in line with our venerable traditions and our Book of Order. It is a sign of troubling and unhealthy acculturation when our church increasingly suffers from amnesia about some of these important traditions.

It also seems of the first importance to me to argue, as I do in my June 3 Outlook article, that Christians in committed same-sex partnerships can be seen as meeting the 'chastity' standard in sexual behavior that is incumbent upon all Christians. I argue that they can meet it in a way that, though relative and imperfect (as would be true for all Christians), is nonetheless sufficient -- and I would add, when everything is truly taken into account, often admirable.

Let me close, if I may, on a personal note. For many long years, I was unable to arrive at a settled position on these matters, because they seemed so very complex to me. I often felt that I agreed with the last person I talked to, no matter what that person's position. Only when my Presbytery unexpectedly requested a professional opinion from me did I finally try to put something down in writing. By that time I had encountered the eye-opening position of theologians whom I have called 'progressive traditionalists' -- people like Helmut Thielicke, Theodore Bovet, the later Karl Barth (as I understand him), and Alexander J. McKelway as well as my friends Eberhard Busch and Berthold Klappert in Germany.

Even so, what finally moved me to stick my head above the parapet, with my first Outlook article (Nov. 26, 2001), was a deepening sense of urgency about impending schism in our church. Any situation in which one side in our debates is forced to capitulate to the other offers no long-term stability, as far as I can see, and certainly not the recent re-affirmation of G-6.0106b. Only a position that has both theological integrity and an acute sensitivity to the elements of truth on each side can do that -- in other words, a genuinely Third Way -- or so I remain convinced.