To the editor:

Two of the items in Dr. George Hunsinger's letter of May 24 deserve immediate response without awaiting the availability of his article which is to appear in Presbyterian Outlook of June 3. One of these is his characterization of G-6.0106b as having been "very poorly drafted." He writes that "the wording is vague, ambiguous and full of loopholes." These characterizations, so far as they may be correct (I concur with them in part), cry out to the judicial commissions which may become involved to use all due care and give all due respect in their research of the legislative history. That history includes the preexisting Presbyterian case law on the matter, validated by the General Assembly's definitive guidance of 1978, which remains in effect.