The Forming of the PCA: Part 6

Read Part 1.
Read Part 2.
Read Part 3.
Read Part 4.
Read Part 5.

There are many questions circulating out there by some elders of the PCA concerning the future of our denomination. Since this is a Pastoral blog, I believe it a good thing to look back at some of the writings of the fathers of our denomination as they were nearing the end of the PCUS and considering themselves what was to become of their own denomination, which in the end led to the formation of the PCA.  I believe we can learn from them, and so the following is Part 6 of this little series looking back to 'the fathers of the PCA.'  Please take time to read the entirety though it is long for a blog.  Trust me this is crucial.

Take note of the year this was written and also that this is a transcription of a public speech (address) and was transcribed on a typewriter.  Therefore, you will notice many spelling errors.  They didn't have spell check in those days I am afraid.

September 1st, 1971 Presbyterian Journal (Pgs. 7-9, 18)
"Getting Set For What's Coming"
By W. Jack Williamson

We have rounded the bend and are heading toward the continuation of a Presbyterian Church loyal to Scripture and the Reformed Faith. Praise be the almighty God! 

I believe that the Holy Spirit has led us to consensus: "to accept the apparent inevitability of division of the Presbyterian Church in the United States, a division caused by the program of the radical ecumenists, and to move now toward a continuing body of congregations and presbyteries loyal to Scripture and the Westminster Standards."

We see today the clear teachings of the Gospel being muted in favor of humanism, universalism and syncretism. We see a constant and progressive lowering of moral and spiritual values in some of the pronouncements of our Church. For many years faithful men and women have attempted to warn our people of this tragic situation developing within our Church. We have attempted to reverse the trends and although we have slowed them down, we have not stopped them.

There are many men teaching in our seminaries and Church related colleges who do not believe or teach the faith of our fathers. There are many men and women in our pulpits who do not believe or accept the basic tenets of our faith. There are many men and women in the official employ of our Church who are not faithful to our standards. We have lost both ability and the will to discipline those practicing and promoting such heresies.

One of the three main elements of the real Church is the right administration of Church discipline. However, we have so neglected this element that our beloved Church is both de facto and de jure apostate. It is simply a false statement to assert that the Church, under the umbrella principle of "unity in diversity," should be allowed to remain a conglomeration of believers and unbelievers.

According to Matthew, when t h e disciples asked our Lord to explain the parable of the wheat and the tares, Jesus said, "the field is the world." (sic) It is not in keeping with Scripture to think of the Church as our mission field.

Root of the Matter

Jesus sends His disciples under a great commission to go into all the world and evangelize, but in our Church today we are in a position where most of our time, energy and money are being spent to evangelize the Church! We are so introverted with our conflicts within the Church that we are sadly neglecting the real battleground where aching hearts and blighted souls are being lost on sin's destructive shoals.

The trumpet is making an uncertain sound. This is a condition that we must not, we will not permit to continue.

The basic issue is the authority and integrity of the Bible. The questioning of this authority and the erosion of this integrity have been principally responsible for causing our apostasy. Certainly it is not necessary for me to document for you that long list of official and unofficial acts, pronouncements and programs of our Church which clearly prove its disdain for both the authority and integrity of the Word of God.

If the trumpet is to make a certain sound, a reaffirmation of this authority and integrity of Scripture in a new Church structure is necessary.

How will almighty God take care of the situation? No man knows. We know that God is sovereign, that His Gospel has not changed, nor has the power of the Holy Spirit been withdrawn, but the "how" and "when" are locked in the secret counsels of His own will. We know that God can bring a great revival that can convict and change those in positions of leadership in our Church. We should pray fervently and constantly for such a revival. In our human judgment, however, we see no signs of any such revival.

We know that God can give us victory in the courts of our Church. We should pray and work fervently and constantly for such a victory, but we see no signs of any real trend toward unseating those who have so firmly grasped the ecclesiastical reins of our Church.

Lesson of History

We see in history that when God's chosen race became so apostate as to reject His Word inscripturate and His Word incarnate, He raised up a new Israel instead of reviving the old. In the new Church of the Middle Ages, God did not give the reformers victory in the existing apostate structure, but led them to reaffirm their loyalty to the final authority and integrity of His Word in a new structure.

We see a generation of faithful men and women being gradually called to their heavenly home; and we see them being replaced each year from our seminaries with a vast majority of young men and women thoroughly indoctrinated in the apostasy and heresy of t h e i r teachers. (sic) In our human judgment, this condition in our beloved Church cannot get better but will progressively deteriorate.

This is why I believe the Holy Spirit has led us to a consensus to accept the apparent inevitability of division in our Church and to move now toward a continuing body of congregations and presbyteries loyal to Scripture and the Reformed Faith. I firmly believe we are in the position described so clearly by Charles H. Spurgeon about 80 years ago. Listen carefully to the exhortation of that great man of God.

Turning Point

"We admire a man who was firm in the faith, say 400 years ago...but such a man today is a nuisance, and must be put down. Call him a narrow-minded bigot, or give him a worse name if you can think of one. Yet imagine that in those ages past, Luther, Zwingli, Calvin, and their compeers had said, 'The world is out of order; but if we try to set it right we shall only make a great row, and get ourselves into disgrace. Let us go to our chambers, put on our nightcaps, and sleep over the bad times, and perhaps when we wake up things will have grown better.'

"Such conduct on their part would have entailed upon us a heritage of error. Age after age would have gone down into the infernal deeps, and the pestiferous bogs of error would have swallowed all. These men loved the faith and the name of Jesus too well to see them trampled on...

"It is today as it was in the Reformers' days. Decision is needed. Here is the day for the man, where is the man for the day? We who have had the Gospel passed to us by martyr hands dare not trifle with it, nor sit by and hear it denied by traitors, who pretend to love it, but inwardly abhor every line of it....

"Look you, sirs, there are ages yet to come. If the Lord does not speedily appear, there will come another generation, and another, and all these generations will be tainted and injured if we are not faithful to God and to His truth today. We have come to a turning point in the road. If we turn to the right, mayhap our children and our children's children will go that way; but if we turn to the left, generations yet unborn will curse our names for having been unfaithful to God and to His Word."

Yes, my dear friends, I am convinced we have come to that "turning point in the road." God has turned our spiritual eyes in a new direction, toward a new goal. I do not believe that the time or the method for reaching that goal has yet been clearly and certainly revealed. But whereas in years past we have been confused as we looked in many directions, now God is showing us that we should take positive action and move in the direction of a continuing Church loyal to Scripture and the Reformed Faith. In this movement that which is first and foremost required of us is that we exercise and exhibit true Christian statesmanship. Such statesmanship circumscribes our movement with certain principles for this hour: 

We must move only as God's Holy Spirit moves us. We must remember God's rule that it is "not by might, nor by power but by my Spirit, saith the Lord of hosts." If this movement be truly of God, it must be led by men and women filled with His Holy Spirit. It must be undergirded with much prayer. 

Christian statesmanship requires that we curb our human impatience and impetuosity. We must not take precipitous and premature action. We all are sick and tired of these trends in our Church, and we want some immediate relief, but we must not run ahead of God lest we fail. As Gamaliel so aptly put it, "If this counsel or this work be of men, it will come to nought; but if it be of God, ye cannot overthrow it."

Just as God has so clearly turned our eyes from wandering to and fro over a multitude of solutions to a consensus of a new direction, so surely He shall show us so clearly the time and the way, if we wait patiently on Him. We move only as His Holy Spirit leads. This is God's revealed way.

Moving Together

We must move together. Although we are saved as individuals, we are called into a corporate fellowship, the Church of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. One of the great problems for men and women of courage and conviction is their fierce individualism. Such men and women have a tendency to hear no voice but their own. This tends to create an independence which is detrimental to our corporate fellowship. 

This attitude can lead individuals and congregations toward a feeling of self sufficiency and isolationism as an insulation against the troubles of the times. Following such a course may give temporary relief to a few, but it is to neglect the warrant of Scripture as to our corporate responsibility. A necessary and desirable diversity in unity binds us in the true Church. Otherwise, we are subjected to the real, twin dangers of narrow sectarianism and further division over minor issues.

This tendency to adamant individualism could lead us in a movement that overlooks our corporate responsibility to those thousands of sheep who are even now in the clutches of the wolves and know it not, or knowing, cannot help themselves. They must have our help if they are to be rescued. Christian statesmen must consider their corporate responsibility to the fellowship, for this is the mandate of Scripture.

Dr. Morton Smith, member of the College of Scholars of Presbyterian Churchmen United and professor at Reformed Theological Seminary, in a recent article stated this principle in the following manner:

"Another implication that must be seen from these Biblical principles is that the idea of an entirely independent and separate congregation is not Biblical. This is clear from this 15th and 16th chapters of the Book of Acts. (sic) Thus, for those who grow restive under their present Church situation, the avenue of independence is not really a Biblical option for them."

The Very First Church

We have the pattern of the first century Church in the Apostolic Age: When problems arose, they met together in council in Jerusalem to hear each other, reach a consensus and move together. In the days ahead we must be keenly aware that Satan would divide us by using our own pride in our individual opinions. We must be humble even as Christ our king was humble. We must be willing to subordinate our judgments to those of the corporate fellowship, unless to do so would violate our conscience. This will mean that we will not move exactly as any individual desires but we will be exercising Christian statesmanship in our corporate responsibility as we move together.

We must move with honor. The head of the Church is Jesus Christ, the King, and He is worthy of all honor. We are His ambassadors. As Christian statesmen, we must do nothing that would bring dishonor to His name. The end does not justify the means for us. We are men under vows. We have sworn allegiance to a constitution. We are bound in honor thereby. No unconstitutional movement can be justified unless and until all constitutional doors have been closed and the situation would bind the conscience to sin.

These doors are not yet closed. Instead, before us now for study, is the draft of a plan of union with the UPUSA. In it is a provision for congregations and ministers to elect not to enter, the so-called "escape clause." This is a constitutional door which can be used with honor. I am fully aware of all the reservations and conjectures about the possibility of this door being closed because of the opposition to it in both Churches, but I would remind you that a door was contained in the 1954 plan of union with the UPUSA, and in the plan of union with the RCA.

Both Dr. J. Randolph Taylor and Dr. Robert Lamar, the co-chairmen of the committee for drafting the plan, have publicly and privately committed themselves to the preservation of an equitable escape clause. I believe that men of good will shall prevail in recognizing that when Christians have irreconcilable differences, it is much better to depart in peace in a spirit of fairness than to attempt to force a position which violates the conscience of others.

I am aware of the tactic of unreasonable delay. Those in control have said that a plan would be presented to the 1973 General Assemblies. I will accept the good faith of those who have so promised until they have proven otherwise. But all these considerations are mere speculations on the future. Only God can control that door. Until He closes it or permits it to be closed through unreasonable delays, I believe Christian statesmanship requires us to wait, for when we move, we must move with honor.

We must prepare for the move. We would still hope and pray that God would bring a great revival or give us victory in this present structure; but Christian statesmanship requires us to prepare for the alternative of a new structure. We must remember that whereas the issue has long ago been clearly delineated for most of us, it has not been so clearly defined for many of our brethren who have been lulled to complacence and indifference by the modernists. We must prepare them.

We must undertake a massive campaign to inform each local congregation and minister in our Church. The ultimate decision must be made at the congregational level. Multitudes of congregations are still in the darkness. We must see that the light is shed abroad in our Church in order that the faithful will be able to make an informed and intelligent decision.

In the next two to three years each congregation in our Church is going to have to make a decision as to its future. We must prepare them for this day of decision. The issue must be clear. The issue must be simple. Many are now confused by the complexity of the conflicting issues. UPUSA union presents a clear and simple issue that all can understand. So does a confessional change. Restructuring does not present such an issue. The people are not prepared to move because of restructuring.

Those in positions of leadership are preparing the form of a new structure. May I suggest that it is time for local sessions and congregations to grapple seriously with this question. A simple resolution such as this might be adopted by your session or congregation:

"Be it resolved that this session (congregation) hereby approves in principle the continuation of a Presbyterian Church loyal to Scripture and to the Reformed Faith, and hereby resolves, should such a Church come into being in God's providence, to be a part of it."

These are days for preparation; and we must be preparing for the move.

Hence, I have suggested that true Christian statesmanship for these days immediately ahead dictates that: We move only as God's Holy Spirit moves us. We move together. We move with honor. We move after due preparation.

May God grant us wisdom and give us courage for the making of these days. May we remember this faithful saying of the Apostle Paul: "My God shall supply all your need according to His riches in glory by Christ Jesus...Now unto Him that is able to do exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think, according to the power that worketh in us, unto Him be glory in the Church by Christ Jesus throughout all ages, world without end."

The Forming of the PCA: Part 5

Read Part 1.
Read Part 2.
Read Part 3.
Read Part 4.

There are many questions circulating out there by some elders of the PCA concerning the future of our denomination. Since this is a Pastoral blog, I believe it a good thing to look back at some of the writings of the fathers of our denomination as they were nearing the end of the PCUS and considering themselves what was to become of their own denomination, which in the end led to the formation of the PCA.  I believe we can learn from them, and so the following is Part 5 of this little series looking back to 'the fathers of the PCA.'  Please take time to read the entirety though it is long for a blog.  Trust me this is crucial.

Take note of this article in particular, which highlights some of the major PCUS news events that took place in the 1960's and early 1970's. 

October 13, 1971 The Presbyterian Journal Article 

"How We Got Where We Are"

By Editor G. Aiken Taylor

Perhaps the most frequently asked question in Southern Presbyterian circles these days is "What's happened to the Church?" The question is asked with the same astonishment one might reflect if told that one's mother has taken to running around at night.

It isn't a question easily answered because churchmen are very subtle and persuasive when they go about doing things that will have a long-range effect ten years later. For instance, who would have thought, when the Board of Church Extension (which had been the Committee on Home Missions) decided to change its name to the Board of National Ministries, that the effect would be to take money which (under Home Missions) would have gone to a home missionary working in a mountain cove; or which (under Church Extension) would have gone to building a new church; and send it (under National Ministries) to a non-church related civil rights group in Arkansas doing battle with the federal government over low-cost housing?

However, the depths to which the Church's testimony has sunk can be painted in the story of actions taken and events that have transpired in Church courts as well as in the content of literature and programs. 

We've gone back through ten years of Journals and separated items that have appeared in this publication bearing upon the trends in the Church. These notices represent a very small fraction of actions taken or business transacted, of course. But they do mention matters that can be backed up with newspaper accounts, minutes of Church courts, tape recordings and authenticated letters.

Figures at the end of each notice refer to the date of the Journal in which it appeared.

General Assembly

No changes in the Confession of Faith have occurred in the past ten years. The 1961 Assembly, asked to revise the chapter on predestination, refused. However, it declared that, "in its judgment the doctrine of foreordination to everlasting death as formulated in the Confession is not an adequate statement of the Christian faith." (5/17/61).

The Winston-Salem Assembly, asked to improve future volumes of Laymen's Bible Commentary, refuses. (6/13/62). Earlier, the commentary had been shown to say that much of the Old Testament consists of collections of folk tales; and to affirm that those who did not have faith in Christ in this life would be accepted in the next. (11/8/61).

Huntington Assembly commits the Church to making long-range plans in cooperation with other denominations under the National Council of Churches. (5/15/63).

1964 Assembly establishes a central treasury, providing for the equalization of all benevolence gifts. (5/6/64). Ordination of women as elders and ministers is formally enacted. (5/13/64).

1965 Assembly formally abolishes separate World Missions season, combines this emphasis with National Ministries into a single "witness" season; sets "poverty" as theme for study. (5/12/65).

1966 Assembly votes the Church into the Consultation on Church Union (COCU); appoints a "pastoral" committee to visit the Synod of Mississippi; condemns capital punishment; for the second time endorses civil disobedience; for the first time has a lady as chairman of a committee. (5/11/66).

Bristol Assembly approves union presbyteries in principle, directs that a new chapter be written for the Book of Church Order to be voted on in the next (1968) Assembly and sent down for a three-fourths vote of the presbyteries. (6/28/67).

1968 Assembly adopts a theological paper endorsing the "new morality." Over the objection of the Permanent Judicial Commission, the Assembly sends down proposal for union presbyteries specifying that only a majority of the presbyteries need approve. Committee is appointed to re-structure the whole Church. (6/19/68).

Grievance Committee of the Assembly, composed of Rev. Joseph B. Mullin, Rev. C. C. Benz and Prof. Worth McDougald, condemn the Journal and its editor by name. Without reading Journal reviews and without meeting with the editor, committee finds the editor guilty of "irresponsible criticism" of the Covenant Life Curriculum, declaring that "the Board of Christian Education has a proper grievance against the Rev. G. Aiken Taylor." (3/5/69). This was not sustained by the Assembly. (5/14/69).

Mobile Assembly commends Chairman William A. Benfield Jr. for the COCU plan of union drafted by his committee. Committee is authorized to draw up plan of union with UPUSA. Committee is authorized to draw up a new Confession of Faith. Union presbyteries are approved after only a majority of presbyteries concur. Concerned Presbyterians is mildly censured. Hunger is given "top priority" in the mission of the Church. Evolution is supported as compatible with Genesis. For the first time the Assembly conducts ordinary business on Sunday. (5/14/69).

Memphis Assembly favors abortion "for economic reasons" and others; supports Colloquy magazine; refuses to condemn the "Black Manifesto"; authorizes youth delegates to future Assemblies; approves social drinking; asks for study of "torture" in Brazil. (7/1/70).

Massanetta Springs Assembly reduces the number of synods from 15 to 7; continues support of Colloquy, Church and Society, Focus; tags the method of operation of the independent Executive Commission on Overseas Evangelism (ECOE) "A grave departure from orderly processes of the Church." (6/30/71).

More drinking at 1971 Assembly than ever observed before. Alcoholic beverages reportedly served youth delegates by Church leaders at nightly parties. Correspondents report seeing ministers "inebriated." (7/7/71).

Presbytery Actions

Presbytery formally lays claim to final and ultimate authority over all property belonging to congregations under its jurisdiction. (11/1/61). (Later set aside.)

Another presbytery accepts a minister who denies the virgin birth, bodily resurrection of Jesus, second coming of Christ. (11/1/61)

Another minister received by a presbytery after denying belief in virgin birth. (2/27/63).

Yet another presbytery receives a minister who makes fun of the virgin birth, denies the substitutionary atonement of Christ. (3/18/64).

Presbytery receives as a candidate for the ministry a university student who calls himself a "Christian socialist" and who was named in Esquire as one of five top student troublemakers in the whole country. (3/18/64).

First woman elder is elected, Mrs. C. E. Williams, Tuscaloosa, Ala. (5/27/64). First woman minister ordained, Dr. Rachel Henderlite. (5/26/65).

Presbytery votes down request that it endorse a full-time evangelist on the ground that it does not believe in "professional evangelists outside the pastorate." (10/7/64).

Presbytery accepts seminary professor on second examination, after turning him down in a first examination when his universalism came through clearly. (5/18/66).

Presbytery authorizes Roman Catholic priest to have an official part in the installation of a minister. (5/10/67).

Presbytery says it is false to hold a view of the atonement in which Jesus is seen as separated from His father and suffering punishment. (7/12/67).

Presbytery votes to make the future formation of new churches a joint effort with the local UPUSA presbytery and also the Episcopal Church. (6/12/68).

Presbytery hires a "community organizer" as part of its "mission." (7/24/68).

Presbytery forwards overture to the Assembly asking it to investigate the Journal. Board of Christian Education asks the Assembly "to put an end to the systematic effort of this teaching elder (the Journal editor) to impugn the integrity, reliability and soundness of this board." (1/8/69). (Turned down by the Assembly.)

Presbytery narrowly receives minister after he is subjected to abuse by seminary professor because he said he believed the Bible was infallible and Adam was a real person. (6/16/69).

Presbytery ordains a new minister (who earlier had flatly denied the resurrection of Christ) with the lifting up of hands" - those participating put their hands under him and hoisted him high in the air. ((6/24/70). (sic)

First of 16 presbyteries adopt resolutions saying they will tolerate no further irresponsible or unconstitutional acts by the Assembly. (10/14/70).

Presbytery "de-elects" a commissioner previously chosen to go to the Assembly after it was pointed out that he had sent the story of that unusual ordination service (above) to the Journal. (2/10/71).

Fourteenth and fifteenth presbyteries adopt resolution declaring their determination to stand for the Reformed faith and the constitution of the Church. (2/24/71).

Congregations, Too

North Carolina congregation invites TV audience to join in the Lord's Supper by going to the refrigerator and "get a beverage and a piece of bread and unite with those who partake in the sanctuary." (11/21/62).

Presbyterian pastor delivers an invocation at the ground-breaking for a new brewery. (2/20/63). (Earlier he had joined in petition to the state legislature for permit to erect the brewery. Later he was elected moderator of the synod.)

First mention is made of jazz "worship" services in churches. (3/10/65).

Presbyterian congregations are using Honest To God, by England's A. T. Robinson, as textbook in "schools of theology." ((3/24/65). (sic)

First mention is made of Fort Lauderdale's Coral Ridge church and its school of evangelism (which the denomination has steadfastly refused to recognize). The notice was this: "Last year a communicant membership (at Coral Ridge) of 426 was reported, of whom 125 had been added on profession of faith!" (4/7/65).

Prominent Washingtonian reports as commissioner to the Assembly in congregational newsletter: "Christianity can only live in the Church if the Church as we know it is completely destroyed." (4/13/66).

Two Savannah congregations withdraw from PCUS, starting chain of events which culminates in Supreme Court declaring that only "neutral principles of law" determine church property ownership. (4/27/66).

PCUS statistics reveal steady loss in membership gains and in Sunday School enrollment for the past ten years. Number of churches reporting no professions of faith at all continues to average over 1,100 per year. (2/15/67).

Denomination's first teenager elected to office, as high school junior becomes a deacon in a South Carolina congregation. (8/6/69).

Christian Education

Adult Uniform Lessons article advocates one-world government, unilateral disarmament and surrender of U. S. sovereignty. (8/30/61).

New view of Bible as "witness and instrument" of revelation is first mentioned. (As the authority of Scripture is at the heart of all Church controversy, the "witness and instrument" theory of Bible authority lies at the heart of the PCUS's  troubles. The backbone of the Covenant Life Curriculum, "witness and instrument" was embraced by Dr. William Kadel when he accepted appointment as executive secretary of the Board of Christian Education before the Assembly. Said Dr. Kadel: "I acknowledge the holy Scriptures as the written record of the witness God has given to His covenant people.") (10/25/61).

Senior Bible Studies tell youth the Gospel writers never knew Jesus in person, that it isn't necessary to believe the miracles in the Bible to be a Christian. (4/25/62).

Adult Uniform Lessons quarterly is the basic economic theory of Marxism is also fundamental Christian economic theory. (1/23/63).

As principal speaker at Richmond fourth Quadrennial, Harvey Cox calls for secularization of the Church. The quadrennial also was challenged to "join the revolution." (1/13/65). Quadrennial is commended by Assembly in the face of heavy criticism. (4/5/65).

John Knox Press makes major policy change with approval of the General Assembly given to publish books written by non-Christians. (7/5/67). Board of Christian Education earmarks gift from its budget to Southern Christian Leadership Conference. (11/8/67).

John Knox Press publishes book to help churches use "adult" films in their education programs. (1/3/68).

John Knox Press publishes essays by Rudolph Bultmann; also a manual on revolution designed to "give some concrete indication of how the goals of revolution are to be reached." (2/28/68).

Dr. William Kadel says in his opinion Church will split within two years. (11/27/68).

Atlanta Y o u t h Quadrennial is marked by obscenity, leader's ridicule of students who asked for prayer. (1/22/69). Quadrennial is commended by the Assembly in the face of heavy criticism. (5/14/69). (sic)

Board of Christian Education announces its intention to go ahead with de facto merger with education board of UPUSA Church, at the initiative of the PCUS board. (11/5/69).

BCE suggests that congregations should invite emissaries of James Foreman to read the "Black Manifesto" from their pulpits; adopts its own version of "Project Equality," an economic pressure p r o g r a m against businesses. (6/11/69). (sic)

BCE approves participation by staff members in marches and demonstrations - in response to criticism from Charleston Presbytery following staffers' activities in Charleston in support of striking hospital workers. (7/30/ 69).

New Covenant Life Curriculum Book, In Response to God, makes "situational ethics" official for PCUS. (8/6/69).

Famous issue of Colloquy appears in which sex and marijuana for teenagers are endorsed. (4/15/70).

BCE drops financial support of IFCO (Interreligious Foundation for Community Organization) but votes to continue support of Southern Christian Leadership Conference, Southern Regional Council, Interreligious Board for Conscientious Objectors, Coalition on National Priorities and Military Policy. (5/13/70).

National Ministries

Board of Church Extension announces it thinks "National Ministries" is a better name to describe its idea of its mission, votes to adopt "bold new strategy." (11/23/66).

Board of National Ministries publishes paper in which "community organization" as a "power tool" to "effect social change" is called "an instrument of mission" or "evangelism." Board announces a 3/day seminar on "community organization." (1/11/67).

BNM puts on its first "way out" conference at Montreat. Many lapel buttons in evidence: "stamp Out Church Extension." (8/23/ 67).

Three-year authorization of $75,000 for Mississippi Delta Ministry of the National Council of Churches vote by BNM. Board organizes its own economic pressure movement against businesses in the absence of a chapter of "Project Equality" in the Atlanta area. (8/30/67).

BNM wires all congressmen from states covered by PCUS urging support of anti-poverty bill. (11/22/67).

Report of special task force on evangelism fails to include fundamental Christian affirmation. (11/29/67).

BNM earmarks a quarter million dollars to support National Council of Churches' "Crisis in the Cities" urban action program and related organizations such as Operation Connection, Joint Strategy in Action Committee (JSAC), Interreligious Foundation for Community Organization (IFCO) and Urban Coalition. (3/13/68).

BNM sends $5,000 to striking garbage workers in Memphis. (4/17/68).

BNM "New Ways" conference shocks Montreat community with face masks at Sunday morning "experimental" worship service, and hand-clapping communion service at night. Five new "experimental" ministries are approved by the board. (8/21/68).

In the wake of mounting criticism, Dr. Ben L. Rose, chairman of BNM, announces the board "unanimously" supports its executive and staff, deploring "misrepresentations." (11/20/68).

BNM authorizes six more "experimental" ministries. (3/12/69).

Executive secretary of BNM writes to firms with which the board has business dealings, asking an accounting of their employment practices. (5/6/70).

Graduate of Reformed Seminary, turned down by BNM for chaplaincy, has an outstanding record in Vietnam under another Church. (1/13/71).

Abortion counselors named for each synod; $50,000 given by W. Va. layman to pay for abortions where girl cannot afford it. (3/3/71).

BNM is seeking additional gifts to supplement $50,000 given to spend on abortions, half of which is already gone. (5/12/71).

World Missions

Board of World Missions lists among "summer opportunities" for youth service, rebuilding the controversial leftist Highlander School Camp near Knoxville, Tenn. (3/30/66).

BWM seasonal emphasis changed from traditional study of some mission field to study of poverty. (2/1/67). Membership in "Project Equality, " economic pressure movement against businesses, is voted by the staff of BWM. (5/10/67).

Executive Secretary of BWM becomes vice president of "Project Equality" for Tennessee. (8/9/67).

One of the study books offered for use during the "witness" season by BWM is on ways of coexistence of different faiths. One story has a Christian girl marrying Hindu boy with a Unitarian minister and a Brahmin priest officiating. (1/10/68).

BWM issues statement critical of alleged persecution of South West Africans, is silent on persecution of Christians in Russia. (5/22/68).

BWM hires a staffer to promote person-to-person relations; asks the Assembly to do a study of the meaning of "salvation." (2/12/69).

BWM executive attacks ECOE, and Journal article written by a missionary who was critical of the board. (10/7/70).

'Church and Society'

Martin Luther King is announced as keynote speaker for the Montreat Christian Action Conference. (4/28/65).

Permanent Committee on Interchurch Relations urges endorsement of Mississippi "Delta Ministry" of the National Council of Churches and asks for $25,000 in Church Extension funds in support. (2/8/67).

PCUS secretary in Division of Church and Society organizes antiwar demonstration. Board supports his freedom to do so. (5/24/67).

Chief executives of all four program boards of PCUS call on the Church to assist "Poor People's Campaign" march on Washington. Orange Presbytery rents Greensboro coliseum to house the marchers, plans mass rally in support. (5/15/68).

Declaring that "significant changes in our social structures" will be necessary for "social justice," the PCUS Council on Church and Society calls on the Church to take the "Black Manifesto" seriously; agrees with manifesto's demand for "reparations"; suggests membership in "Project Equality," economic pressure movement against businesses, for all courts and agencies. (7/9/69).

Moderator of 1969 Assembly joins in signing call for nationwide march on Washington to pressure Congress to stop the war in Indochina. (6/3/70).

Moderator of 1970 Assembly and other PCUS leaders help organize the "Set the Date Now" movement to get America out of Vietnam by the end of 1971; make plans to visit Paris for consultation with Vietcong and North Vietnamese. Board of Christian Education contributes $500 to "set the Date Now" office in Washington. (3/17/71).

Moderator of 1970 Assembly calls for setting a firm date for Vietnam withdrawal; announces series of meetings in Washington to pressure Congressmen. (3/24/71).

Staffers from Richmond travel to Washington to lobby on behalf of welfare reform. (3/24/71).

Board of Christian Education executive says that participation in "Set the Date Now" and trip to Paris are part of board's Christian education job. (3/31/71).

Office of Church and Society appeals to all ministers of PCUS to write letters demanding an end to Vietnam war. Letters are to be collected and delivered in Washington on day set for massive Presbyterian demonstration in the capital. (4/21/71).

Office of Church and Society sends out mailing of materials helpful to young people trying to evade the draft. (6/2/71).

Some 100 Presbyterian ministers and laymen go to Washington to lobby against the Vietnam war. (6/23/71).

The Academic World

Professor in PCUS college declares he wants to stand publicly with a minister under fire for denying the virgin birth. (5/23/62).

Presbyterian seminary professor is asked to leave the campus of a nearby state university after his distribution of anti-war tracts threatens to start a riot. (11/21/62).

Four professors from the Church's four seminaries contribute articles to a symposium arguing that the Church does not have an infallible Bible, nor does it need one. (1/6/63).

Yet another PCUS college opens a coeducational dormitory. (6/26/63).

Avowed atheist speaks on PCUS college campus under sponsorship of YMCA. (2/12/64).

Leading PCUS college drops requirement that professors pledge belief in the fundamental teachings of Christianity. (3/4/64).

Seminary professor has high praise for UPUSA's proposed Confession of Faith, calling the Church's effort "a concern for authentic theological work that holds real promise for the future." (3/31/65).

First PCUS college accepts committee recommendation that men and women be allowed to visit in each other's dormitory rooms. (12/1/65).

Seminary professors pictured as they parade with signs in front of Navy recruiting office. (4/20/66).

"New morality" spokesman returns to PCUS college campus for second series of lectures on "sexual ethics." (This author's book was so controversial that the National Council of Churches, which published it, finally withdrew it from circulation.) (4/20/66).

PCUS seminary professor, jailed in demonstrations, is revealed as board member of the Southern Conference Educational Fund. (5/31/67). A favorite on the campus, he is asked to deliver the Commencement "sermon," during which a group of local Presbyterian elders arise, read a protest, file from the service. (6/14/67).

"God is Dead" theologian William Hamilton presides at "worship" service held at PCUS college in support of William Sloane Coffin Jr. who was indicated for violating the Selective Service Act. (2/14/68).

PCUS college professor launches a personal statement of faith by saying: "God is dead, but don't worry, the Virgin is pregnant again....there is no such thing as a pure faith, a pure religion, a pure moral decision." (11/27/68).

Prestigious PCUS college inaugurates new president with changes in student code permitting drinking in certain places on campus and women in dormitories at greatly liberalized hours. (10/23/68).

Several PCUS colleges drop chapel attendance requirements. (4/2/69).

Professor of Bible at a PCUS college says Jesus was married and probably had children. (4/16/69).

Seminary professor joins Episcopal Church, announces his intention to retain dual membership. (11/12/69).

Two Presbyterian US seminaries host regional planning sessions in preparation for the March on Washington planned by the Mobilization Committee to End the War in Vietnam. (10/8/69).

Leader of a student project sponsored by a Presbyterian US synod on a state university campus, calls for revolution to free the black man in America from "an oppressive and imperialistic form of government," urges his readers to arm themselves with guns. (5/13/70).

First notice appears, of a PCUS college professor who denies most of the essential Christian doctrines in circle Bible studies written for another publication. In this notice, the professor is said to deny the existence of the soul. (8/26/70).

Wall Street Journal calls "Project Equality," to which the staff of the Board of World Missions, several presbyteries and at least one synod belong, a "boycott" m o v e m e n t against American businesses. (5/8/68). (sic)

Potpourri

Thirty-three top leaders of PCUS sign statement in support of the Consultation on Church Union (COCU), saying that Presbyterianism, as such, must be done away, to be replaced with "a new creation that is truly new because it is of the Lord's making." (4/19/67).

UPUSA executive tells COCU press meeting that one aim is de facto union by bringing agencies of the Churches together before formal union has been voted. (5/17/67).

Chairman of PCUS delegation to COCU tells the General Assembly it is "false" to say that de facto union is progressing under the Consultation. (6/28/67).

Official UPUSA report enumerates "giant strides" taken by COCU towards de facto union through "joint mission" efforts. (3/20/68).

At last a secret newsletter circulated by the editor of the Outlook is disclosed to exist for the purpose of guiding strategy among the liberals. (12/16/70).

Liberals in the Church put a full-time man in the field on behalf of liberal objectives, disguising the move by announcing he is doing "graduate work" under a Texas foundation. (1/20/71).

Evening Worship and Why I Like It by Ken Pierce

Ever since I was a child, I have enjoyed evening worship. Part of this is nostalgia, but this does not render it any less significant. Journeys with my father to old Fourth Reformed in Grand Rapids perhaps stopping in to see my grandparents briefly before the "long" 20 minute ride home, conversations less important for their content than the fact they happened. Later in life, the sonorous Bronx accent of Charles W. Krahe, so striking to Midwestern ears, on the Seventh Reformed broadcast on the car radio on treks back to Hillsdale College after weekends at home.

Then, the delight of listening to John R. de Witt at the grand, long, full evening services at Seventh Reformed when I was privileged to serve under him: multiple weeks on the story of Blind Bartimaeus by the roadside begging, expositions of Genesis, chapter by chapter, and the singing of sturdy, old hymns.

In our present context, an informal setting, sometimes with heart-stirring spontaneous prayer, different hymn tunes and instruments than the morning, and folks lingering a good while afterwards in fine Christian fellowship and the cords of love.

I have pleasant associations with evening worship. Yet, that is not the only reason I like evening worship. I would greatly miss it if I served a church that did not worship, whether together, or in small groups in homes, on Sunday evenings.

1.) As many have noted, a Sunday without evening worship can, and often does, become the Lord's hour, not the Lord's Day. I notice this when I travel and stay with family. Our Sabbath evening ritual gives a nice balance to the day, keeps Christ in view, and prepares us for the week ahead.

2.) Evening worship has a different feel and flavor. Even if the format of worship is the same, the timbre of it has always differed at night. I have noticed this from my youth, to my days in seminary at First Presbyterian here, in Virginia, and our evening services at Trinity. Sunday morning has a majestic, rousing feel, and Sunday evenings have a softer, intimate feel.

3.) Compared to our ancestors, we sit under a paltry amount of preaching. Sermons have grown shorter and shorter, and services fewer and fewer. Most churches no longer have midweek prayer and preaching services (we don't either, though I often wish we did). Evening worship gives us another opportunity to hear from God.

I hope no-one will take this as necessarily an indictment against not having evening worship. It is more a plea for an old way that has fallen off in many quarters, and which I, for one, am sad to see go.

The Forming of the PCA: Part 4

Read Part 1.
Read Part 2.
Read Part 3.

There are many questions circulating out there by some elders of the PCA concerning the future of our denomination.  Since this is a Pastoral blog, I believe it a good thing to look back at some of the writings of the fathers of our denomination as they were nearing the end of the PCUS and considering themselves what was to become of their own denomination, which in the end led to the formation of the PCA.  I believe we can learn from them, and so the following is Part 4 of this little series looking back to 'the fathers of the PCA.'  Please take time to read the entirety though it is long for a blog.  Trust me this is crucial.

Take note of the year this was written and also that this is a transcription of a public speech (address) and was transcribed on a typewriter.  Therefore, you will notice many spelling errors.  They didn't have spell check in those days I am afraid.

August 1972 Address on Presbyterian Journal Day

"The 112th General Assembly And Where Do We Go From Here"

By W. Jack Williamson

The 112th General Assembly continued the mad march of the Presbyterian Church in the United States toward liquidation through ecumenism. The radical ecumenists continue to push with ruthless abandon those policies and programs which are both certain and calculated to cause a division in our church. Relentlessly abusing the power in their hands, these radical ecumenists, in total disregard of the historic witness of our beloved Church, cut Her up piecemeal in preparation for Her final demise. The 112th General Assembly simply added emphasis to the consensus we believe the Holy Spirit led us to declare last year, i.e. "to accept the apparent inevitability of division of the Presbyterian Church in the United States, a division caused by the program of the radical ecumenists, and to move NOW toward a continuing body of congregations and presbyteries loyal to Scripture and the Westminster standards." I read recently a statement made at the time the Presbyterian Church of Canada was about to be liquidated. It struck me as apropos to our situation. Let me share it with you - 

"There is the ever deepening conviction that a movement which claims - as its foundation principle - the desire for larger union, and persists in creating disunion in our own Church; which claims as its animating spirit love to other denominations and disregards the convictions of a large part of its own membership, and would compel them out of their Church by ending it; which claims to be a fuller expression and manifestation of Jesus Christ to the world, and presses its own aim without having regard to covenants past or consequences to come - is not a movement which indications the Hand and Voice of God."

At the 112th General Assembly, we heard retiring Moderator Ben Lacy Rose speak of "the urgency of our learning to live with the pluralism which is now a fact in our denomination." Dr. Rose then preached fervently and forcibly that "one of the most pressing questions before the Presbyterian Church U.S. today is whether we can learn to live with this diversity, and to make room in our church for those who have had a different experience of Christ than our own..." This was a sincere plea for the umbrella principle of "unity in diversity" in an attempt to avoid a division in our Church. But as soon as the Assembly got started the radical ecumenists proceeded to ignore the wisdom and plea of Dr. Rose. For example - an excellent opportunity to practice this principle of allowing diversity in the Church was presented on the issue of combining new Synods "F" and "C". The facts were these - Synod "F" was Alabama and Mississippi; and Synod "C" was Tennessee and Kentucky. These were the new synods as recommended by Dr. Harvard Anderson and his ad interim committee after years of study and thousands of hours and dollars of research. There were the new synods as restructured by the 1971 General Assembly. Synod "C" (Kentucky-Tennessee) invited Synod "F" (Alabama-Mississippi) to request a merger into one large Synod. The old Synod of Alabama voted against the merger. The old Synod of Mississippi voted against the merger. The new proposed Synod "F" met in convention in Meridian, Mississippi, on May 16, 1972, and voted by a margin of 293 to 239 not to request the merger. Yet in the face of all this overwhelming expression of grass-roots opposition to the merger, the General Assembly voted to put the two proposed Synods together into the largest Synod in the Church. Why? Well, when proposed Synod "F" met in Meridian in May, the conservatives won all the votes at the convention. It thus appeared that we would have one conservative Synod out of seven. The radical ecumenists could not stand this and would not tolerate such diversity for the sake of any unity. So these radical ecumenists used their power to take what many have felt to be this vindictive, punitive action against Alabama and Mississippi. They obviously do not want to "make room" for us as Dr. Rose plead; so they continue to drive the wedge of division.

We heard a familiar voice at the 112th - that of the new Moderator, Dr. L. Nelson Bell. What a lift it gave to our spirit to be a part of the highest court of our Church which so fittingly honoured this great servant of God. Dr. Bell spoke with deep emotion of his prayer that God would use him as a reconciling agent in our Church. He set as his goal that we would be closer together at the end of his term. He declared that this reconciliation could only be accomplished by the work of the Holy Spirit; reminding us of the words of the prophet "Not by might, nor by power, but by my Spirit, saith the Lord of Hosts". Yet we saw no true spirit of reconciliation surfacing at this General Assembly. True reconciliation is a two-way street, not just on way. True reconciliation requires a "give and take" by both parties in order to reach common ground. This has never been the type of reconciliation suggested by the radical ecumenists. I recall in 1967 the Moderator called a Conference on Reconciliation at Atlanta. He invited about 40 leaders of various groups and positions in the Church. It became quite obvious at that conference that the reconciliation of the radical ecumenists was not reconciliation but capitulation - we were to be reconciled by giving up our positions and joining them. This Moderator asked me one day "What can I do to reconcile the various elements in our Church?" I told him that he could begin by giving our position some voice in the decision making bodies of our Church through the appointments he would make. To my knowledge, he did not make one single appointment of a person who holds our position. This attitude was verified when later one of those conferees was elected Moderator and given the responsibility of appointing a committee to study the divisions in our Church and to study methods to heal them. The General Assembly said that this committee was to be broadly representative of all the positions in the Church. This Moderator appointed the committee without naming one single person of our persuasion. The 112th General Assembly showed this same attitude toward reconciliation. When persons were elected to the provisional G.E.B., only four out of 70 were conservatives. We join with Dr. Bell in praying for reconciliation, renewal and revival. We know that the Holy Spirit alone can accomplish it. We stand ready and willing to show our good faith by our acts. The radical ecumenists must do likewise. If they truly want reconciliation, we suggest they prove it by two actions, to-wit:

1. Support a vote on the plan of union in 1973.
2. Postpone the effective date of Synod and Presbytery restructuring until after the vote on the plan of union.

We pray for reconciliation. We will cooperate in any movement for true reconciliation. But we will not surrender. We cannot be expected to cease and desist from all actions toward a continuing Church while the radical ecumenists rush ahead without pause or concession toward the liquidation of our Church. I have outlined above two acts of reconciliation which would demonstrate their good faith desire for true reconciliation. If they refuse to so act, they must bear the onus of the refusal of Dr. Bell's offer of and efforts at reconciliation.

As we wait and hope and pray that God will so motivate these radical ecumenists to such acts of reconciliation, Christian statesmanship requires us to continue to plan for the alternative of a new structure. We would be both foolish and derelict in our duty of leadership if we did otherwise.

What then are these plans for a continuing Church loyal to Scripture and the Reformed Faith? The Steering Committee has suggested a plan which it believes is the best plan to accomplish this end. What then is this plan? It is really very simple:

To support any plan of union with the UPUSA Church which contains an acceptable clause permitting local congregations and ministers to elect not to enter the union; and to exercise this election not to enter the union and continue our Presbyterian Church.

In the August 2, 1972, issue of The Presbyterian Journal I outlined this plan together with our reasons and our time table. I understand that reprints are available. I will not then again review them here. I simply restate my firm conviction that this plan is the most effective constitutional method for peaceful realignment. This is the position take last year by your Steering Committee. Your Steering Committee still holds that this is the best of all alternatives for continuing a church loyal to Scripture and the Reformed Faith. As a member of the Committee for Presbyterian Union charged with drafting such a proposed plan of union, I would like to report on its present status, as follows:

1. The escape clause, or for us the "survival" clause, remains as in your study draft. It has not been changed. There will be a strong effort in the committee to change it. Some of the leaders who have committed themselves to an "escape" clause, have been heard to say in recent months such things as: "We said we would support an escape clause in the plan but we didn't say what kind of an escape clause". They know that the only acceptable type of clause is one like the one in the plan which leaves the decision at the congregational level. I do not believe that these leaders will demean their word given in private and public and avoid the clear intent of that word in an evasion by supporting an unacceptable "escape" clause. I have great hope of an acceptable "survival" clause remaining in the plan so that individual ministers and congregations can make their own decisions.
2. There is a deliberate effort on the part of the radical ecumenists in our PCUS to delay vote on the plan until 1975. They say frankly and openly that this delay is dictated by pure ecclesiastical, political expediency. Many, if not most, of the committee members from the UPCUSA are ready to vote in 1973. But it is the radical ecumenists in our church who are seeking the delay. In an act, which I believe exceeded its authority, the Committee  adopted an advocacy role at its June meeting in Charlotte. This means that the Committee will not only draft the plan of union but that it will use the full recourses of the Church to sell, advocate, and promote this plan. The first such promotional meeting has been called for about 100 select advocates to meet and plan a strategy to get the plan passed. This first meeting is to be held in St. Louis, Mo., in September. The Committee has not yet made a decision as to when the draft of the plan will be presented to the two General Assemblies for vote. The sub-committee on drafting will have the final draft of the plan ready for approval by the full committee at a meeting to be held February 8-10, 1973. At this meeting in February, the Committee will decide on when the draft of the plan will be presented for vote. It can be ready and presented to the respective General Assemblies in May and June, 1973. In my judgment to do otherwise would be breaking faith with the people. In 1971, the draft was sent down for two years study. Although no firm commitment was made to vote on it in 1973, certainly the clear implication and inference made by those presenting this proposal was that we would study it for two years and then vote. I have repeatedly said that I would accept the good faith of those who so promised or through reasonable inference led us to so believe until they prove otherwise. I still have great hope that the honor of these brothers in Christ will prevail and that we will vote on the plan for the first time at the 1973 General Assemblies of the two Churches.

But frankly, there are men and women whose judgment I respect who do not believe that the radical ecumenists will ever permit us to realign in peace. I have always believed that men of good will would prevail in recognizing that when Christians have irreconcilable differences, it is much better to depart in peace in a spirit of fairness than to attempt to force a position which violates the conscience of others. This is the position that Dr. Bell took when he supported the "escape" clause in his remarks to the Committee in Charlotte in June. But many of my other friends who have been in this battle longer than I, warn me that they have seen little of this spirit among our opposition over the years. They say that the radical ecumenists will never permit an acceptable "survival" clause to be in the plan of union, and that they will delay the vote until they have restructured the voting power in the Church to their advantage. This wisdom and advice forces us to look at alternatives to the plan on continuing the true Church through the "survival" clause in a plan of union. I think it is time we put some of those alternatives on the table and looked at them. Let us do that.

ALTERNATIVE I - A CONTINUING GENERAL ASSEMBLY

After registering a protest at General Assembly opposing the liquidation of the P.C.U.S. through union with the UPCUSA, a group of Commissioners would continue the General Assembly at another place as the continuing General Assembly of the PCUS. This would demonstrate that the PCUS was still a living entity; and local churches and presbyteries would declare their allegiance to this continuing Church. This could precipitate one big, massive civil lawsuit over the control of church property. But there is historical precedent for this procedure in the continuation of the Presbyterian Church in Canada.

ALTERNATIVE II - PRESBYTERY REALIGNMENT

Any Presbytery would take an action dissolving its relationship with its existing General Assembly and become an independent presbytery. This independent presbytery could then join with other presbyteries in forming an ecclesiastical structure. There is no specific provision in our Book of Church Order which authorizes this procedure; but there is historical precedent for this method as this is exactly what happened in 1861 when the presbyteries in the South - one by one - announced their withdrawal from the Northern Church. Later these presbyteries got together in Augusta and formed PCUS. Some feel that since PCUS was originated by these presbyteries agreeing to unite, presbyteries would have the inherent right to disassociate themselves from the body. Others point out that in 1861 the northern group did not seek to stop the southern presbyteries from withdrawing; and no one knows what a civil court would do if such an action was contested.

ALTERNATIVE III - PRESBYTERY DISMISSAL

Book of Church Order Par. 16-7 (8) gives the Presbytery the power "to receive and dismiss churches". This power is often exercised. A local church can petition its Presbytery to dismiss it; and its Presbytery can dismiss the local church which will take its local property with it. This authority in the Book of Church Order is unqualified; but it must be read in connection with BCO Chapter 14 of Rules of Discipline entitled "General Review and Control". This chapter deals with the right and duty of higher courts to review the records of lower courts. It provides that "In reviewing records of a lower court the higher court is to examine:...(3) whether they have been wise, equitable and suited to promote the welfare of the Church." It also provides that "...if any serious irregularity is discovered the higher court may require its reconsideration and correction by the lower court". This simply means that if a Presbytery dismisses a local church, the action can be reviewed by Synod and General Assembly; and if such higher court decides that it was not wise, equitable or suited to promote the welfare of the church, the action may be reversed.

Another factor to consider is that many feel that a Presbytery cannot dismiss a church to independency but must dismiss it to another organized ecclesiastical body.

So you see there are serious questions which should be considered if a local congregation elects to pursue this alternative. And one final word of caution - all constitutional lawyers with whom I discussed this matter agree that if there is any doubt but that your Presbytery will dismiss you, you should not request it. You are in a much poorer legal position in a civil court if you have submitted to the jurisdiction of the ecclesiastical court and been denied relief than if you had just withdrawn from Presbytery without requesting dismissal.

ALTERNATIVE IV - LOCAL CHURCH WITHDRAWAL

This is the method followed by the two Savannah churches. They just took session and congregational action withdrawing from the Presbytery and then so notified the Presbytery. Many Presbyterians erroneously believe that the decision in these cases infallibly guarantees that a Presbyterian congregation may withdraw from the PCUS and take its property with it. This is not true. This case gives no such legal guarantee. Churches in the state of Georgia would have excellent chances so to act and keep their property. But churches in almost all other states would have to count on the concurrence of their own state Supreme Court if they were permitted to leave and take their property. The Savannah case, in any state other than Georgia, would merely give a legal possibility to overrule existing state precedents which is a long way from a legal guarantee.

There is another grave danger in this method which was not raised or decided in the Savannah case. Our Book of Church Order, Par. 6-3, provides that: "If a church...ceases to exist and no disposition has been made of its property, those who hold the title to the property shall deliver, convey and transfer to the Presbytery...all the property of the Church." Some take the position, and there is some legal precedent for this position, that if the total congregation withdraws, then according to Presbyterian law, there is no congregation and the property passes into the hands of the Presbytery under the above quoted section of the BCO. So a local church choosing this method should move with caution and only after expert legal advice.

These then are the four alternatives most often mentioned. Now, incidentally, don't worry that I have here been suggesting vulnerable spots to those who have opposing views as to the Mission of the Church. They already know them. Almost all of these were recently published in a report by a Hanover Presbytery Administrative Commission which report, I am informed, was principally prepared by Dr. E.T. Thompson. So I am not revealing any secrets to the enemy. I just want you to know as much as they do.

After evaluating these four alternatives, I hope you will see why the Steering Committee contends that the best constitutional method to continue our church and have peaceful realignment is through an acceptable "survival" clause in the plan of union. By this method we can move as Christian statesmen as God's Holy Spirit moves us with honor, with unity, and with due preparation and deliberation. It is the only method that absolutely guarantees to a local congregation that it may realign and keep its property. But let us declare here and now that property is not the main issue; and that if we are forced by our convictions to risk the loss of all property for the sake of the honor and integrity of the Church of our Lord Jesus Christ, such a risk we are fully prepared to take. We prefer it not; but we shall not shrink from it, if God requires it of us. If the radical ecumenists are successful in delaying the first vote on union with UPCUSA beyond the 1973 General Assemblies, then many feel they must seriously consider some other alternative other than the "survival" clause and move before July 1, 1973. Why July 1, 1973? Because this is the effective date of the geographical restructuring of Synods for most of us. What difference does that make? All the conventions for the new synods will have committees studying the redrawing of presbytery lines. Hence it is possible and probable that as of July 1, 1973, both Synods and Presbyteries will have new boundary; and the Presbyteries as we now know them will no longer exist. In my address to you in 1970 I made a statement which time has proven to be true, i.e. I said then

"Restructuring is ecclesiastical, political gerrymandering and its passage is a necessity if the radical ecumenists are to liquidate our church. They must have restructured Presbyteries for the political advantage they seek."

This goal they can reach as of July 1, 1973. It means that in a Presbytery, such as mine in East Alabama, where we now have a voting majority for conservatives, that the boundaries of the presbytery may be redrawn and gerrymandered so as to change this voting majority as of July 1, 1973. A local church in such a Presbytery now has the alternative of being dismissed by the Presbytery with its property. But this door may be closed July 1, 1973, if the Presbytery boundaries are so redrawn and gerrymandered so as to change the voting pattern of the Presbytery. Since this is the obvious design of many of the radical ecumenists, many churches now in conservative Presbyteries are having to evaluate their position to see if they are willing to wait until after July 1, 1973, and run the risk of having the door of Presbytery dismissal closed in their faces. Thus you can see that this is truly a crisis year for those of us who are committed to a continuing church loyal to the Scripture and the Reformed Faith. Your Steering Committee is not and can not be a Command Post. Our experience proves that conservatives cannot be "herded, driven or commanded"; but they can be informed, led and pointed in a direction. The direction toward which your Steering Committee is pointing you is toward such a Continuing Church, loyal to Scripture and the Reformed Faith. It could very well be that some of you will use one of the above suggested methods and some will use another. It could very well be that through a combination of these methods we all arrive at our ultimate goal. The main point is that in the end we all are together int he sweet fellowship of a true branch of the church of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, which is loyal to the Word of God and the Westminster standards.

We need to be much in prayer that God will lead us to a unity of mind and spirit for the living of these days. Crucial and difficult decisions must be made in this year. I wanted to lay out on the table so that you would be informed and also realize that your leadership is not naively failing to wrestle with great and momentous decisions.

In conclusion, let me remind you of the situation when Moses led God's chosen children out of Egypt. As they approached the Red Sea, they looked back and saw that the Egyptians were pursuing after them with "all the horses and chariots of Pharaoh and his horsemen and his army...and the children of Israel were sore afraid." "But Moses said unto the people, Fear ye not, stand still and see the salvation of the Lord which he will show to you." (Exodus 14:13)

Dearly beloved, in our hours of decision, Despair whispers "Lie down; give it all up; you are defeated." Cowardice says "Retreat; go back and join them; it is too difficult; relinquish your principles." Precipitancy cries "Do something if it is wrong, to stand still and with is sheer folly." Presumption boasts "If the turbulent sea is before us, let us march headlong into it and expect a miracle."

But Faith listens neither to Despair, nor to Cowardice, nor to Precipitancy, nor to Presumption, but it hears God say "Stand still", and immovable as a rock it stands. "Stand still" - keep the posture of an upright man, ready and prepared for action, expecting further orders, cheerfully and patiently awaiting the directing voice. And it will not be long - maybe tomorrow, or next month, or next year - before God shall say to us, as distinctly as Moses said it to the people of Israel "GO FORWARD." And dear brothers in Christ, then we shall march forward toward God's destiny for us clothed with His blessing and armed with His power. 

So let us again hear the Word of God:

"Fear ye not, stand still and see the salvation of the Lord which He will show to you...and the Lord shall fight for you, and ye shall hold your peace."

The victory will be entirely the work of Jehovah. It is the part of His people to trust Him and not to murmur.

Say not my soul "From whence can God relieve my care?" Remember that Omnipotence has servants everywhere. His method is sublime, His heart profoundly kind, God never is before His time, and never is behind.

So "Stand Still" to hear his voice; but having heard, let us "GO FORWARD"! Come marching orders, come quickly, we pray!!!

The Forming of the PCA: Part 3

Read Part 1.
Read Part 2.

There are many questions circulating out there by some elders of the PCA concerning the future of our denomination.  Since this is a Pastoral blog, I believe it a good thing to look back at some of the writings of the fathers of our denomination as they were nearing the end of the PCUS and considering themselves what was to become of their own denomination, which in the end led to the formation of the PCA.  I believe we can learn from them, and so the following is Part 3 of this little series looking back to 'the fathers of the PCA.'  Please take time to read the entirety though it is long for a blog.  Trust me this is crucial.

Take note of the year this was written and also that this is a transcription of a public speech (address) and was transcribed on a typewriter.  Therefore, you will notice many spelling errors.  They didn't have spell check in those days I am afraid.

August 1970 Address on Presbyterian Journal Day

"Getting Set For What's Coming"

By W. Jack Williamson  

In considering this subject I am reminded of the lyrics of a popular song, which goes like this:

Que Sera Sera

What will be, will be!

The future's not mine to see!

Que Sera Sera

Since I can't know anything about the future or do anything about it, I "get set for what's coming" by stoically girding up my loins and waiting for the worst. This is not an unprevalent mood among conservative Presbyterians today. But I would suggest that such an attitude is not consistent with Calvinistic Reformed theology. We do believe as the Westminster Confession states: "God from all eternity did by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass".

But to those who have been redeemed through the blood of Jesus Christ, Paul says that God has "made known unto us the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure which he hath purposed in himself."

Thus our God has a plan; and He has made known unto us portions of that plan in the Holy Scriptures. In the Bible there are revelations of "what's coming" in God's plan; and we should keep in mind these revealed certitudes of the future as we "get set for what's coming".

For instance, the Apostle Peter in the third chapter of his second epistle, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, writes of the great crisis which the true church of Jesus Christ must be prepared to face in its last days of witness upon this earth. He says that crisis shall be one of skepticism within the confines of the professing church.

Now to meet this crisis the apostle does not appeal to our emotions. That's no help in meeting this challenge. Rather he writes: 

"This second epistle beloved, I now write unto you: in both which I stir up your pure minds by way of remembrance."

Peter is warning us not to try to meet this crisis on impetuous, emotional impulse; but we should carefully think through decisions with "pure minds". But of what should we be mindful?

"That ye may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets and of the commandments of the Apostles of the Lord and Savior".

In other words, to meet this crisis there is only one resource; and that is to turn to the written Word of God and to understand what God has spoken in that word. Ultimately this is our final appeal - to God's written word. But we had better know what is written in that word or we will be helpless in the crisis.

Now, how does Peter describe the crisis? Listen to his words:

"Knowing this first that there shall come scoffers, walking after their own lusts, and saying "Where is the promise of his coming?"

This question the scoffers ask "where is the promise of his coming?" shows that they are not pagans but churchmen for only in the Bible do they find such a promise. So the scoffers are within not without the church.  They know what the Bible says. They just don't believe it. They say it cannot be intellectually defended. They are on Sessions, behind pulpits and sitting in seminary chairs; and they question the veracity of the word of God. They "walk after their own lusts" as they rely on their own natural minds for the truth; and they scoff at those who would literally believe the word of God. You know those who assume the air of faintly uncomfortable earnestness one associates with the church relevant. Have you not seen them as they assume this air of superior intelligence and smile upon you with a great benevolent tolerance of your blighted ignorance. Peter says that they adopt the uniformitarian theory of geological changes when they say "since the fathers fell asleep all thing continue as they were from the beginning of creation". How contemporarily this describes those 20th century scoffers who deny the historicity of the Genesis flood and have adopted the twin theories of geological uniformitarianism and biological evolution. Since 1830 these two psuedo-scientific theories have been the principal intellectual basis for the scoffer' attacks upon the veracity of the word of God. These men have attempted to accomodate scripture to their understanding of these theories.

But Peter reminds us that they are "willingly ignorant" - that is the fact are available but they refuse to face the facts. He says:

"They are willingly ignorant that by the Word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water; whereby the world that was being overflowed with water, perished."

Peter is reminding us that in the time of Noah, God did destroy his creation on this earth in a global, supernatural catastrophe - the flood.

And Peter then reasons that since we have the facts of this once global destruction by water; we are to believe the prophecy that God will again destroy the creation on this planet in another global, supernatural catastrophe - this time by fire.

"But the heavens and the earth which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men...But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise and the elements shall melt with fervent heat: the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up."

For all who believe God's word, two sure future events are here revealed, namely:

1. Jesus is coming again to this planet.
2. God will destroy his creation on earth by fire.

Now we don't know when these events will happen. Jesus says only the Father knows the day. Peter says we are to remember that "one day is with the Lord as a thousand years and a thousand years as one day". But do we not see signs in our times of the fulfillment of this prophecy so that we could be living in these last days. At any rate these certitudes of "what's coming" revealed by Peter should provide us with a frame of reference from which to search the scriptures with pure minds for answers in this crisis. They should certainly help us evaluate that which is permanent and that which is transitory, that which we must fight to keep and that which we might be willing to let go.

Now from this frame of reference let us look at the "scoffers" of our day. They are radical, determined ecumenists who have a timetable for the liquidation of the historic witness of the Presbyterian Church in the United States. We need to take note of this timetable if we are to "get set for what's coming".  We must remember that we are satisfied with the historic doctrine and order of our church; and we are comfortable in subscriptional integrity under the ordination vows we took in support of this doctrine and order. It is those who are dissatisfied and uncomfortable who want to change. They make the issues for change. We do not. They choose the timetable for presenting these issues. We do not. We are then placed in the position by these proposed liquidators of defending our faith and polity. It is like a man across the street throwing rocks at your house, breaking your windows and doors. You were satisfied and comfortable in your house; and you would prefer that he not attack it. But once he takes the initiative to destroy you have no alternative but to fight to defend or be destroyed. Such is our position on these issues of liquidation of our church. We don't want them; we don't raise them; but for the preservation of our faith and order, we must fight them.

What then is the radical ecumenist timetable for liquidation of our church? The timetable is anchored by a date in 1974 when the General Assemblies of the U.P.U.S.A. Church and P.C.U.S. will meet simultaneously in Louisville, Kentucky. This is to be the great marriage.

But certain other dates must be met if this marriage is to be then consumated. In 1971, next year, there will come to our General Assembly the following:

1. Restructuring Synods and Presbyteries.
2. Recommendation on Church Property.
3. Draft of new Confession of Faith.
4. Draft of plan for union with UPUSA.

Restructuring will be up for adoption; and if adopted, Synods would be immediately so restructured. Then the new Synods would meet in September or October, 1971, to consider the recommendation to restructure Presbyteries. Remember General Assembly can restructure Synods; but only the Synods can restructure Presbyteries. We must fight this restructuring plan with all our might - first in next years General Assembly; and if we fail there, then in the new Synods. This restructuring is ecclesiastical, political gerrymandering; and its passage is a necessity if the radical ecumenists are to liquidate our church. One of their leaders was heard to say at the 1970 General Assembly - "If we are to ever have UPUSA union, we must have restructuring". We need to keep always in mind that it is the restructuring of Presbyteries that they must have for the political advantage they seek. Restructuring Synods is just the first step toward restructuring Presbyteries. So in "getting set for what's ahead" we need to fight this restructuring at General Assembly; but we also now need to be preparing and implementing a plan to fight it in the new Synods, in the event it passes the General Assembly. Even if we loose at the General Assembly, we might succeed in stopping some of the new Synods from restructuring the Presbyteries. Make no mistake about it, this restructuring is the crucial issue before the church; and on its outcome could very well hang our future course.

Church property will be another critical issue in 1971. Since the U.S. Supreme Court decision in the Savannah Churches case, it has been evident that the radical ecumenists would try to get our Book of Church Order amended so as to bind local church property more closely to the Presbytery. No action was taken affecting church property at the 1970 General Assembly; but all overtures relating to church property were referred to the Permanent Judicial Commission which was instructed to study the entire church property issue and make recommendations to the 1971 General Assembly. It is hoped that no changes will be recommended in view of the fact that we will soon be voting on a plan of union with UPUSA which will drastically alter our doctrine of the ownership of church property. It would seem to be the better wisdom to wait until that union issue is settled before raising any drastic property changes. Also there is a serious constitutional question as to whether any change in The Book of Church Order could affect the title to church property acquired prior to the change. If, however, the 1971 General Assembly votes to change our doctrine of ownership of church property, it will have to be done by an amendment to the Book of Church Order. Such an amendment would have to pass the 1971 General Assembly and be sent down to the Presbyteries for advice and consent. If a majority of the Presbyteries voted for the amendment, then it would have to come back to the 1972 General Assembly for approval. Hence no change of church property ownership can be made effective before the 1972 General Assembly. Many feel that if any such drastic change is voted by the 1971 General Assembly, there will be massive withdrawals of churches between the 1971 and 1972 General Assemblies over this church property issue.

In 1971 the Drafts of the new Confession and the plan of union with UPUSA will be sent down to the church for study.

At the 1972 General Assembly it is probably that the new Confession and the plan of union with UPUSA will be presented for their first vote. If both pass, then it is in the timetable of the radical ecumenists to send them down for advice and consent of the Presbyteries in the restructured church between the 1972 and 1973 General Assembly. it will take the affirmative vote of 3/4ths of the Presbyteries to approve either issue. If such an issue gets approval of the required 3/4ths of the Presbyteries, it would be presented to the 1973 General Assembly for final action. If UPUSA union gets this final approval, the marriage would be in Louisville in 1974. 

After 1974, COCU will be presented. Of course, if UPUSA union passes, our approval of COCU is almost a certainty. The liquidation would then be total and complete.

How then do we "get set for what's coming"? Do we have a timetable? Do we just wait until the liquidation is complete and then act? If we wait so long, will we be able to move then? Will we not then be so bound that any movement would be impossible except as individuals? These are legitimate and soul searching questions that are being debated across our church.

In my judgment our timetable should be flexible because we are committed to a principle rather than to a structure. We are committed to the preservation of a corporate witness to the truth as revealed in the Holy Scriptures. This commitment involves us in several possibilities. There is the possibility of revival within the present structure. We must never discount the power of God; but we should be praying for a fresh outpouring of the Holy Spirit to revive our Church. There is the possibility of peaceful realignment as the existing structure is divided among men of goodwill. A unique method for such realignment was suggested at the 1970 General Assembly in the form of creation of provisional synods and presbyteries for those churches who wanted to remain in the structure for the timebeing and preserve their right to vote and yet be guaranteed the right to withdraw or unite with some other group and take their property with them. This possibility is still being explored. There is the possibility that sufficient number of the issues propsed in the timetable of the radical ecumenists will be defeated, and that they will then leave us with our existing structure. And there is the possibility that separation by us will be necessary to preserve our integrity to our said commitment.

There are those who admit that these possibilities exist but feel that the church has gone so far that the only probability is separation and that we should be preparing for it. Among some there is a mood of impatience. Many desperately want to see this realignment in their lifetime. Others are just tired of fighting. Some young ministers see their careers stymied in the present structure and are understandingly anxious to being with new connections and opportunities. Some laymen are saying that they have just had all they can take and are going to move for peace. There are those who say the church is already apostate when the General Assembly ignores any appeal to scripture as final authority. Some even question but that we are committing sin remaining "unequally yoked with unbelievers". These feelings run strong, and they run deep. These see the present church as having passed the point of no return to the faith once delivered to the saints. Many churches find themselves in the position of de facto separation as they cannot and will not support any of the programs or Boards and agencies of our church. They see a possibility of withdrawal now and being able to take their property with them; but they fear if they wait much longer this possibility will be lost. Involved is church property and church trust funds worth millions. These feel that if the church is restructured after the gerrymandering plan now proposed, the battle is then lost. They reason that if you then remain until the vote on UPUSA union, your only hope is the possibility of a withdrawal provision in such plan of union. Remembering the past and such withdrawal provision in the RCA union plan, these feel that no workable withdrawal provision will be permitted by the radical ecumenists to be in the final plan. They suggest that any vague promise now for such a provision is a liberal strategy to lull us into complacency and inaction. These among us insist that the time is upon us to hear, heed and act upon Paul's injunction to the christians in Corinth when he wrote:

"Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you."

On the other hand, there are many who do not feel that our cause is lost in the present structure. They remind us that restructuring has not yet passed and that great opposition is developing to it. They don't believe that our people will pass a church property change which in effect takes away the local church property from the congregation. They see the real probability of defeating UPUSA union (just as in 1954), even in a restructuring church. They sincerely see the probability of preserving this great historic church for the proclamation of the gospel of the Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. It is true that most who take this attitude are numbered among the "elder statesmen" of the church. As such, their opinions are often weighed against the background of the fact that when body and mind get tired, men are less likely to undertake a daring new venture. But I have lived long enough to know that it is a mistake to discount the voice of experience. It is often the way of wisdom. These are reminding us that God is not dead and that He is fully able to revive our church. They are reminding us that the standards of our church are still faithful to the Word of God even though many of our members, officials, ministers, etc., are not. They remind us that we still have the right of protest and the right to unfetterly preach the gospel. They are reminding us that we are not congregationalists but presbyterians and that we have taken a vow to be in subjection to our brethren in the Lord. They are suggesting that our vows bind us in subcriptional integrity to a structure so long as that structure in its official standards sets forth true doctrine. (sic) They are suggesting therefore that no change in structure such as restructuring or ownership of church property is justification for separation; they feel that separation is justified only when doctrine is violated as might be in a new confession or UPUSA union. They suggest that the issue should be doctrinal rather than structural. Out of their experience they warn that our great adversary, Satan, will not leave us alone even if we separate; but Satan will work in any new structure to confuse and divide. We will not escape the battle with Satan, no matter where we go. They admit that this course involves practical risks for church property, careers and numbers. But they point to the catalogue of men and women of holy writ who were called by God to walk in faith and disregard the risks. Of course, they are willing to admit that the vow to be in subjection to the brethren is limited, or conditioned upon the doctrine that God alone is Lord of a man's conscience. And if the Holy Spirit convicts an individual or a group that it is the will of God that a certain course be followed, that individual or group must obey that conviction even if it violates this vow of subjection. To such an individual or group, we should accord the respect due any man who takes a certain course based on his conviction that it is right.

Then, in the midst of this crisis when no clear course appears, should we sit back and do nothing? God forbid. There are actions we should be taking. I firmly believe that God helps those who help themselves. Hence, I suggest that there are three areas in which we should be taking action; namely, we should be

1. Praying for preservation
2. Fighting against liquidation
3. Preparing for separation

Our first action should be in prayer to almighty God to preserve us and our Church for the proclamation of the gospel of Jesus Christ. At the same time we should be "passing the ammunition" and doing battle to defend our Church against liquidation. This means fight restructuring at every possible point, fight any change in ownership of church property or in our confession of faith, and fight union with the non-confessional bodies of UPUSA and COCU. At the same time we should be taking action in preparation for separation. It would be utterly foolish to be "caught with our pants down". In local congregations, presbyteries and the church at large, we need to be preparing plans and structures for separation; so that if this becomes a necessity to keep our commitment to the true gospel it may be accomplished with order, dispatch and decorum.

Now in taking action on these three fronts simultaneously, we preserve our options and keep our timetable flexible. As God unfolds His plan before us in the future, and as we seek earnestly to be in His will as instruments for implementing His plan, I suggest we keep in remembrance these things, to-wit: 

1. Our ultimate resource for direction is the written Word of God; hence, we had better know and seek to understand what is written therein.
2. The certitudes of the future that God has revealed ot us in Holy Scripture provide our proper frame of reference. (sic) They point us to that which will last and that which will pass; and they speak of God's timetable, where one day is as of a thousand years and a thousand years as one day.
3. We are exhorted to earnestly contend for the faith not a form. It is to principles not structures that we are committed. Therefore, any issue that will justify separation must be doctrinal.
4. It is our minds not our emotions that should be stirred; but it is our minds purified by the Holy Spirit.

Therefore, we need to hear and heed the call of Peter to a new and renewed obedience to God:

"Seeing then that these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness...be diligent that ye may be found in him in peace without spot and blameless."

And Peter calls us at the same time to courageously stand fast for the truth of the gospel:

"Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own steadfastness. But grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. To him be glory both now and for ever. Amen."

[The last quote in italics was not in the text for it was cut off in the manuscript, but to my knowledge this is what the author probably said.  Since he was quoting throughout 2 Peter throughout it seemed to me that the best Scripture that would fit in Peter's writings would be this verse at the close of 2 Peter 3:17-18. What better way to end an address?]