To the Editor:

You may by now have had so much comment on Dr. Milton Winter's article from Perspective that you do not care to print further comment. In case you do,however, let me say that as a conservative evangelical, I did not recognize myself or my fellow-evangelicals in Dr. Winter's description of us.

To begin with, I am distinctly not a separatist, nor are the evangelicals with whom I have worked most closely. My 54 years of faithful ordained service will testify to my faithfulness to the Presbyterian Church. Far from being a separatist, I worked hard and long as a member of the Joint Committee on Union to unite the two major Presbyterian bodies. I also served as a member of the committee that wrote the Brief Statement of Faith, hardly a separatist document! Those who have worked with me in presbytery, synod and the General Assembly can testify to my years of faithful service to our denomination. That service continues, since I presently chair our New Covenant Presbytery's Committee on Examinations.

Let me make two further comments on Dr. Winter's article. First, the "Confessing Church" statements seem to me to reflect the same concern that produced the "Declaration of Barmen," one of our confessional documents. The concern was then, as it still is, to speak to doctrines that are at risk in the life of the Church.

Had I composed the "Confessing Church" statement, I would have begun with a statement on the Trinity, which I consider to be a doctrine much at risk for at least the past twenty years. Incidentally, that is a concern that John Leith and I shared and sought to address as we worked together on the committee to write the Brief Statement of Faith. Happily, most of that committee willingly joined John and me in addressing it. My major concern at this time, however, is to assert the fact that it was appropriate in 1934 to speak to doctrines that seemed to be at risk in the life of the Church, and it is still appropriate!

Second, I am interested in the way that Dr. Winter discusses the Adopting Act of 1729. He, like many others, appears to think that the "exceptions" that were allowed were very broad in character. And the wording of the Minutes of the Synod appears to contemplate that. However, the historical fact is that the only exception voiced had to do with Chapter XXIII of the Confession as adopted by the Church of Scotland. The objection was to the third paragraph of that chapter which grants the civil magistrate the authority and duty of regulating the doctrine, worship and discipline of the Church. That was completely unacceptable to Dissenters in the American Colonies! The only other objection that I am aware of was the objection to adopting any written statement of faith other than the Bible. Clearly, the Synod's understanding of "exceptions" was very limited, indeed! It hardly gave room for the Church to be forever broadening in its faith and order, unless clearly led by the Spirit speaking to us through the Word of God!

M. Douglas Harper, Jr., Ph.D.
Honorably Retired, Parish Associate
Grace Presbyterian Church
Houston, Texas