Clear as Mud

Sunday's paper brought two op-ed style articles in its "Faith and Values" section, both written by local Presbyterian USA ministers on the workings of the recent meeting of its General Assembly:

"Finding real message in Trinity paper" by the Rev. Tom Harris of the Park Circle Presbyterian in North Charleston and "Bringing clarity to Presbyterian (USA) decisions" by the Rev. Spike Coleman of St. Andrew's Presbyterian in West Ashley. [I must confess that I was confirmed at St. Andrew's about a million years ago.]

Both ministers wrote to set the record straight--according to their lights--in each case suggesting that the Newsless Courier, along with other media, had "take[n] statements from the paper out of context," (Coleman) or "taken a few lines . . . out of context in order to be sensational and provocative" (Harris).

So far this topic seems quite boring, doesn't it? It's merely liberal apologists telling the faithful that nothing happened that was really unusual, despite what they may have heard to the contrary.

Thus, I stopped reading each article after a few paragraphs, but I confess I stopped taking Harris's seriously when he said, "Feminine metaphors for God abound in Scripture . . ., in Reformed confessional documents and by Reformed theologians such as John Calvin."

I stopped reading because he had made an idiotic statement, as anyone who knows the Bible, Presbyterian or otherwise, would discern immediately. Even the sentence's syntax was impossible.

Imagine my surprise when I spotted the "Clarification" in Tuesday's paper on this very sentence--a "Clarification," notice, not a "Correction." It seems that Harris's "op-ed" "was changed to say that feminine metaphors for God abound in the Bible and Reformed theological writings. In fact, Harris only cited two biblical references and mentioned Reformed documents that indicated 'God is not male'." Don't you just love the passive voice? It allows you to acknowledge a mistake without saying who is responsible.

My better half was so curious about what Harris had actually said (unclear, of course, in the "clarification") that he put in a quick phone call to Park Circle Presbyterian. It turns out that the Rev. Harris was quite unhappy about the substitution of "abound" for "cited," words that obviously are not synonymous! He had immediately called the reporter who handled the column to find out why she had changed his wording. She was also surprised because she had not done it. Apparently an EDITOR had changed it. They really do exist!

You see, if I didn't know otherwise, I would think that the Newsless Courier was trying to make fun of the Rev. Harris. After all, his complaint was that the media was sensationalizing what was really noncontroversial--and here his words were changed to be controversial!

It just might make the reader wonder about the REST of the paper!