The Jack Miller Archive

Both Clowney and Faculty disagreed with use of 1976 Shepherd Study Paper. The faculty’s reasoning differed slightly from Clowney. Clowney argued that paper was confidential faculty material and the positions expressed are only tentative. The faculty based its argument on confidentiality.

Kuschke gives three aspects updating the current situation:

1. Shepherd, Gaffin, Miller and I will have another conference . . . if Shepherd does not retract his statements . . . then Miller and I will let our charges be read in presbytery . . .

2. At the presbytery the charges will be read . . . without entering into a debate of the issues . . . [presbytery] will elect a committee to consider the charges . . . and they will report . . . to the presbytery at a later meeting.

3. Although the issues will not be debated at the Oct. 1 meeting there will of course be a statement of the issues in the charges and the quotations of Shepherd’s statements as they are read.

The committee of three elected by presbytery John Mitchell, John Kinnaird (Mitchell’s brother-in-law), and James Payton, a student of Shepherd’s and recent graduate of WTS.

Hewitson, Page 51-52