To the Editor:

Mr. Tilford answers my response by asserting that the issue is a matter of faith, which the New Testament claims is about things we cannot see or prove. He states that all we have is God's Word, which for him is the Bible (for me it is Jesus Christ). He claims that the Biblical God is totally righteous, totally truthful, and that the truth does not change. With the exception that I would define Jesus as God's Word, I have no argument with what he says.

He then makes a profoundly honest statement:
"In a belief system, whether religious or ideological, the true believers set the tone for the system. I want a PCUSA in which conservative evangelicals set the tone. Liberals have brought the Church to wrack and ruin; they need to leave. The PCUSA needs to appeal to Christians who are truly Reformed, committed to Christ, and who accept a body of doctrine wrapped around Calvinist teachings. That’s not the PCUSA of today… and the condition we are in reflects that. "

I do not disagree for the most part with what he says, except the hint that Evangelicals are the "true believers," for one can truly believe something that is incorrect. What I see Mr. Tilford asserting is his vision for the church, cast in more basic terms. And, I am excited to note, that it does not appear to include the necessity of accepting Scripture as infallible. I don't accept his judgment that the liberals need to leave. But I will accept that as what he believes necessary. I don't believe that is necessary, and more than accepting those who believe the conservatives need to leave.

If the discussions we have been having would remain at this level, I believe we could make some progress. Because the issue shifts to what the PCUSA should look like theologically. And in that point, we may be able to find sufficient common ground to work out an accommodation that significant numbers of people can accept.

I thank Mr. Tilford for clarifying his position and shifting the matter to something we can perhaps discuss without bloodshed. Which is, it seems to me, whether the current presumptions of the edge groups are helpful or unhelpful to the cause of Christ and the Presbyterian Church.

As for me, I personally believe we are in a theological ambiance with many similarities to that in which the early church developed. There are gods about of all kinds, all claiming the hearts and minds of those who are seeking. And we are even now faced with matters the church reviewed early on and discarded. Specifically, I believe that Gnosticism, particularly in some recent scholarly and fictional work, is emerging as a significant threat to the Church. I believe the ground upon which much of the turmoil rests is the subjective interpretation of history and authority, where one's own interpretation, grounded in personal experience, becomes the criterion by which truth is measured. These things tend to find expression mostly on the liberal side. I also believe that rigidity of theological precepts, the measurement of a Christian by certain visible standards, the tendency to assume to know God's judgment (which I find real risky), the tendency to interpret in a very narrow way, are also things that damage. And these tend to find expression mostly on the conservative side.

Bottom line, it seems to me, is that if we can begin with the notion that we are dealing with ambiguity, then we may be able to find common ground.