Dear Editor:

I thank Edward Koster for his thoughts regarding Earl Tilford's article. He raises some very good points. Particularly his statements: "I believe Mr. Tilford's essay is a pristine example of this battle of the purists. The camps are clearly defined with unambiguous criteria. The assumption is made that everyone fits into one camp or the other, and that there is no way the church can contain both camps."

I can relate to this quite personally in the recent Mount Auburn saga where we lost out Pastor and our lives changed overnight. Yet many of us are still here and committed to the PC (USA). But I can well remember feeling personally at times wondering if I were a good Gay or a bad Gay or a Good Mount Auburnite or a bad Mount Auburnite or a good Presbyterian or a bad Presbyterian and the list goes on and on. It boils down to that concept of purity that Mr. Koster shared that the so-called far-left and far-right seems to push. Yet I found that such purity is a matter of relevance even in those camps since I have been in both in my walk of faith. And I have always disliked labels since they effectively dehumanize us and are too simplistic.

So I discovered that what really counts is Earl is a child of God, loved by God, and seeks to follow Christ who brings the love of God to me personally. In a sense I believe this is consistent with Mr. Koster's belief in the apparent ambiguity of our faith. For what it means is it doesn't really matter what Earl Tilford, Mr. Koster, or anyone else in the PC (USA) thinks about my own personal relationship with God through Christ Jesus, it is what that we cannot see or touch that counts. It is the reality of the living God in our own lives!

Nevertheless I think it important to note these facts. First of all the PC(USA) does in my opinion have a tradition of honoring ambiguity and the importance of honoring the individual's walk of faith through Jesus Chirst. However we still have in our Book of Order that passage that contradicts the value of an individual's faith in Christ – G-6.0106b. And thus the ambiguity ends and unless one has his/her head in the sand the meaning is quite clear.

So our BoO does have this statement that reflects the purity expressed by the far right and this continues to be affirmed by the simple majority in votes. So my question to Mr. Koster and others is how can one claim that the PC(USA) honors ambiguity as long as G-6.0106b remains in the BoO? Or do those words mean something else than what they really say? It's not a question of purity or ambiguity, but of honesty I think.

Yours in Christ,