Letter from Misty Irons to the Overseeing Session

June 23, 2002

To the Overseeing Session of Redeemer OPC:

On May 29, 2002 I received your letter of May 24, 2002 in which you informed me that you had passed a motion at the last Session meeting (May 13, 2002) directing me to shut down my MusingsOn.com website. Since the main concerns you have stated about my website are that the views expressed therein “are in danger of threatening the peace and purity of the church” and “run contrary to the Word of God,” I felt that matters as weighty as these deserved ample consideration. I decided to give myself at least two weeks to think about your letter before responding, and now two weeks have stretched into 3 1/2 as I finally sit down to write. And so I apologize for the slight delay in my response, which I hope you would understand to be the result of my desire to give your concerns full consideration, and not because I wished to neglect them.

Over the past few years I have tried to get to know each one of you personally, not only because of the mutual love and care that we have for one another in the body of Christ, but because as my elders, I felt it was important to try to cultivate as much of a personal relationship with each of you as possible, in spite of the obvious difficulty that as a provisional Session you are not able to be present regularly at Redeemer Chapel. I share this with you to let you know that I have sought to take seriously my accountability to you as my Session, and that even in our present situation I remain eager to discuss frankly with you my views and whatever specific concerns you may have about them.

For this reason I must say I have been somewhat puzzled by the directive you have given me to shut down my MusingsOn.com website, and I wonder if perhaps you might be able to provide me with a fuller explanation for why this motion was passed. In your letter you begin by saying that at the May 13 meeting, the Session spent a good deal of time considering “the issues that we discussed in your presence at our previous [March 7, 2002] meeting concerning your views on homosexuality as expressed on your website.” As I have read and re-read this statement in light of the directive you have given me, I wonder if perhaps we might differ in our understanding of what was discussed at the March 7 meeting. The Session certainly did ask me to be present, and I recall that toward the end of that meeting, for a period of about half an hour to 45 minutes, members of the Session did ask me a number of questions about the views I expressed in my article, “A Conservative Christian Case for Civil Same-Sex Marriage,” which I was happy to answer. I do not, however, recall anyone asking me questions about the rest of the contents of the Musings On site. I remember that the existence of my website was acknowledged in our discussion. I also remember at one point [Mr. P--] asking me why I had chosen to post such personal thoughts and reflections on the web, from which I inferred that he must have taken a closer look at some of my other articles besides the one on civil same-sex marriage. But aside from this one question from [Mr. P--], no questions about the rest of the contents of MusingsOn.com were posed to me in my recollection, and I came away from the meeting assuming that most members of the Session must not have gotten around to reading the rest of my site. But I felt that since we at least had some good discussion about my civil same-sex marriage article (although I thought we really only scratched the surface of some of those issues), and since I thought I had shown myself to be willing and eager to answer the Session’s questions, I felt confident that the Session would simply continue the discussion with me at a later time if concerns arose about the other postings on my site. I guess the last thing I expected was for the Session to pass a motion at the very next meeting directing me to shut down the entire website. I would be most grateful if you could help me understand why you passed this motion without first giving me an opportunity to address your concerns about the website as a whole.

I think I am equally puzzled by the reasons you have given for why MusingsOn.com should be shut down. I am in complete agreement with the Session’s statement that the Bible is the only infallible rule of faith and practice, that homosexual activity is not good behavior but is an abomination in God’s sight, that even the unfulfilled desire for homosexual activity is sin, and that the power of God is able to change homosexuals who repent of their homosexuality and put their trust in Jesus Christ. (This last statement adopted by the Session, however, seems to leave room for disagreement among Christians over how much change can be expected from a homosexual person who comes to Christ, and it is possible we might differ on that more specific question.)  I do disagree, however, with the Session’s statement that “government sanction of same-sex civil unions is contrary to God’s Word, and that Christians have no warrant from God’s Word to call for such government sanction,” because I do not believe that God’s Word addresses the matter of what civil governments may or may not sanction in society. It seems to me that in the area of politics the Bible is silent, therefore Christians are free to take political positions that they deem to be wise and prudent according to their own consciences.

Perhaps the main reason why I hold to this belief is that I do not hold to a theonomic view of the civil government, which, as far as I understand, is not a requirement to be a member in good standing of the OPC and is therefore not considered a violation of my first membership vow. So even though I realize that I am in disagreement with the majority of my Session on these matters, I believe I do represent a minority group that exists within the OPC as a whole, which aligns itself with our denomination’s civil libertarian tradition that dates back to our founder J. Gresham Machen and includes prominent figures such as Prof. Paul Wooley. Were the OPC to change its policy of tolerance and rule that civil libertarian political beliefs are contrary to the Word of God and cannot be adhered to by OPC members, I could certainly see how expressing views such as mine would be committing the sin of disturbing the peace and purity of the church. But since such a ruling has not yet taken place, as far as I know, I can only assume that the OPC’s current position is to tolerate my views. For that reason, I have viewed the current controversy surrounding my website as simply a continuation of the controversy that has existed for a number of years now in the OPC between theonomic and non-theonomic camps, which controversy the OPC has also tolerated to the present day. Of course, I realize it is possible that I am misinformed about some of these matters regarding the OPC’s position and policy toward church members. If I am, I would certainly welcome your correction.

Finally, you write in your letter, “although you did try to avoid making your identity and connection with the OPC known on the internet, now that this connection is known, it is impossible for you to continue your website without calling into question our denomination’s doctrinal distinctives and its adherence to our primary and secondary standards.” It sounds here like the majority of the Session believes that the OPC has taken an official position against some of the views that I have expressed on my website, and so again I think I would need some further explanation on this point, since I am not aware that the OPC has officially ruled any of my views to be out of accord with either our primary or secondary standards.

I have given much thought, however, to the Session’s concern that there are some people who surf onto my website who have become aware of my connection with the OPC either through hearsay or through sources outside of my site. To my understanding the Session had recently raised a similar concern with regard to my husband’s website (Upper-Register.com), and has chosen to resolve the problem by simply asking him to post a disclaimer on his site. I wonder if the Session would be satisfied to apply a similar solution in my case, especially since unlike my husband’s Upper Register site, my Musings On site makes no reference to my being either Reformed, Presbyterian, or a member of the OPC, and unlike my husband I am not an ordained officer in the OPC. Perhaps I could post the following disclaimer: “The views expressed on this website do not represent the official position of the author’s denominational affiliation.” In other words, the disclaimer could be worded in such a way that anyone who knows about my OPC connection won’t think that I am representing the views of the entire denomination, and anyone who doesn’t know about my OPC connection will remain ignorant of it.

I hope I have communicated in this rather lengthy response how concerned I am to remain fully within the bounds of my responsibilities and obligations as a member of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church. I feel I have given serious thought to this issue with regard to my website in light of my fourth membership vow that I “agree to submit in the Lord to the government of this church and, in case [I] should be found delinquent in doctrine or life, to heed its discipline.” I am hoping that you might be able to assist me with some of the questions that I have raised with regard to your letter, so as to give me further guidance and clarity in my understanding of my membership responsibilities to the OPC. I look forward to hearing your response so that I might gain that greater clarity.

Yours in Christ,

Misty Irons