To the Editor:

I have read Barbara Hager's e-mail comments in response to Mr. Jensen's summary of his actions posted on October 19th, and I am very disturbed by it.

As a minister member of the Presbytery of Detroit who has since 1978 publicly opposed our church's stand on the ordination of self-affirming practicing homosexuals, both for the intent of G-6.0106b (apparently to prohibit ordination or installation of a specific class of sinner) and its application (that it appears to be applied to a very narrow band of sins and sinners), I am distressed that my position is being advocated in a way that is destructive and damaging to the cause I advocate. Ms. Hager's argument that Mr. Jensen needs to GET A LIFE! (emphasis in original) is no argument at all. Second, her allegations of Mr. Jensen's motive, that he "obviously has some neurotic or psychotic problems with his own sexuality," are uncalled for, inappropriate, unsupported by facts, and destructive to the debate we are having throughout our church. I believe that if one wishes to take a public position on an issue, one has an obligation to be effective.

Ms. Hager identifies herself as an attorney, and as a practicing attorney I am embarrassed.

Ms. Hager uses an argumentum ad hominem to support her case at law.

Ms. Hager apparently believes the cases filed by Mr. Jensen are for violations of G-6.0106b. I have read the same material she cites, and it appears to me that Mr. Jensen filed his cases for violation of the ordination vow that the ordainee will submit to the polity of the church G-14.0207e, G-14.0405b.5. I believe it is true that at least some of those charged have publicly stated they refuse to follow a provision of the Book of Order.

Ms Hager states that the observation of sexual activity is the only way to prove the charges under G-6.0106b. My reading is that G-6.0106b requires a self-affirmation, and such a self-affirmation in most cases is sufficient evidence to convict of most crimes under state law, and is certainly enough to find a person in violation of G-6.0106b. From what I have read, many of these cases involve such self-affirmation.

It is indeed true that our prohibition is only against those homosexual persons who are involved in sexual activity. I have yet to see any case suggested against a homosexual person who is abstinent.

Ms. Hager cites the "Weir [sic] case and Hair case" to support her defense. If she means Wier v. Session, Second Presbyterian Church and Hair/McCallum v. Session, First Presbyterian Church, her legal analysis is inaccurate at best. First, the cases are remedial cases, not disciplinary cases, a distinction that is crucial to this matter. Second, the Wier case does not say what she says it does. The issue in that case was whether, where Session did an irregular ordination of an electee who publicly stated he was in a committed homosexual relationship, the ordination could be rescinded once done. Citing GA minutes going back to 1927 and provisions of the Book of Order, the GA PJC stated that where there has been no stay ordered, an ordination once done can be reversed only by a disciplinary case (not a remedial case). It says nothing about a requirement to prove sexual activity. Third, the Hair case is a remedial case that came to the PJC of which Ms. Hager is the Clerk.

I would remind Ms. Hager that this is MY church as well as hers. I, at least, believe there are logs in many eyes, and enough sin to require repentance all around.