The Forming of the PCA: Part 2

Read Part 1.

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 2 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 1969 Address on Presbyterian Journal Day

"The Actions of the Mobile Assembly and Their Effect on You"
By W. Jack Williamson

Hello "Miss Clydie" - where ever you are! I don't like dialogue, garden paths or primroses; so I shall speak up and speak out.

In her recent monologue published in the Journal. "Miss Clydie" wrote of the fantasy of "dialogue" with the radicals. She concluded that much "dialogue" was really a trip down the garden path to look at the primroses. She closed with this exhortation:

"But if you don't like dialogue, garden paths, or primroses, there's still time (but not much) to speak up and speak out."

"Miss Clydie" this is my time to do my thing; and so, not liking such dialogue, garden paths or primroses, speak up and speak out, I shall.

I thank Almighty God for this independent forum where the true voice of the Evangelical Reformed Faith may be heard. This voice is certainly muffled in the official halls of The Presbyterian Church of the United States. No where was this more obvious than at the Mobile Assembly. The mood of this Assembly was one of courteous conflict between those who would defend this faith and those who would sacrifice the faith for organizational unity. There was the great hue and cry by church officialdom for reconciliation. They have conferences about it. They write pastoral letters and make proclamations about it. They preach from their official pulpits about it. But I seriously question if they want real reconciliation. Reconciliation is a misnomer. They don't mean reconciliation - they mean capitulation. Come on back and be reconciled in love ON OUR TERMS. Forget your faith and accept ours. There are many words of reconciliation. But words are empty gestures without actions. Their past actions force us to question their desire for real reconciliation. For instance the Presbyterian Survey, the official publication of the church is not permitted to publish but one side of an issue. We have even attempted to purchase, as advertisement, space in our official church paper to state our position on issues. We have been refused space and told that the Board of the Survey has the policy of refusing to print anything which criticizes any program or policy of the General Assembly. Is this an act of reconciliation? The Board of Christian Education has consistently refused to publish additional educational materials edited for evangelicals so that we could use the official literature of our church. We ask not that the other publications be abandoned but that some be added for people of our persuasion. Is this refusal an act of reconciliation? It appears to me that in its present financial crisis, pure economics might whisper to this Board of Christian Education that a hint to the wise is sufficient. Again, searching for acts of reconciliation, let me ask you to try to recall any nomination or appointment to any Board or Agency or Committee of a true evangelical reformer. Such men and women have not been nominated or appointed. Hence our voice has not been heard in the official halls of the Church. And in the aftermath of the Mobile Assembly we are not encouraged by any actions by the leadership in our church which show any real interest in reconciliation. Since the Assembly, ad interim committees have been appointed to recommend steps toward union with the UPUSA Church and to write a new Confession of Faith. A casual appraisal of these acts of appointment will not disclose any real effort at reconciliation by giving to us voice on these important committees. Only a few days ago another ad interim committee was appointed by the past three living moderators as authorized by the Mobile Assembly. This committee is to study the unrest in our denomination. The Assembly resolution stated that it would be composed of members "broadly representative of different viewpoints in the Church". What a marvelous opportunity for a genuine act of reconciliation! But our viewpoint is scarcely represented on the committee as appointed. It is composed of radicals and moderates principally. The officials of the Church seem to take the  attitude that they will appoint no one to a committee who does not totally agree with the present programs, policies and trends in our Church. There is certainly no evidence of acts of true reconciliation on the part of our present leadership.

So whereas acts of reconciliation are few, cries for capitulation in the name of reconciliation are many. At the Mobile Assembly I found friendly rapport with many of the young radicals. They were in control and could afford to be magnanimous in attitude but deadly in action. They were organized, efficient, and dedicated to the headlong race down the main stream of ecumenicity; and they showed a very winsome attitude that seemed to say with a quiet smile that those who would not be so reconciled would be engulfed. On leaving the last session of the Mobile Assembly I remember two of these young radicals (for both of whom I have a real personal fondness) saying to me, "don't leave the church now that you've been beat. Stay in here with us. We need you. We can work together."

Since the Mobile Assembly, I've received several letters from some of them expressing in essence the same sentiments. I sincerely appreciate their friendship and concern; but in equal sincerity they must recognize two barriers to the type of so-called reconciliation they seek. These two barriers are:

1. There are things that are not negotiable.
2. We still believe the faith of our fathers.

There are things that are not negotiable. We can negotiate methodology or organizational structure; but we cannot negotiate the essence of our faith. This faith, "which was once delivered unto the Saints", is a gift of the grace and mercy of Almighty God. It is not ours to negotiate. We cannot and will not compromise these convictions.

We still believe the faith of our fathers and are comfortable in it. We are not leaving the Church or encouraging others to leave; but these radicals are attempting to take our visible church from us. We are a confessional church. We have taken vows as to our faith and our calling. Among those is a promise that we would make known to a proper court of the Church any change in our views which would make us out of accord with any fundamentals of this system of doctrine. We have not changed our views. We believe these vows were made to Almighty God. In absolute subscriptional integrity we can stand before Him in the pure searchlight of his perfect knowledge and proclaim that we still hold to these vows in the simple and direct meaning of the language in which they are expressed, without reservation, rationalization or equivocation. It is on this confession by men and women of one spirit that our church has been built; and we claim and believe the promise of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, the great head of the Church, that the "gates of hell shall not prevail against it." These vows and promises obviously make the radicals uncomfortable; for they no longer can subscribe to them in simple honesty. Hence they would take the church into unions where they are not bound by such confessional standards and vows. And they may succeed in taking with them the visible, organizational structure of the Presbyterian Church in The United States. But we are not going with them. At stake is the purity of the Church. We have vowed to study this purity; and we shall defend it. When this tidal wave of modernism has passed it will have engulfed those houses of faith built on such sand; but there shall remain those built on the rock of the confession of Jesus as the Christ, the Son of The Living God. There shall always be a continuing Church founded on this confession; and we shall remain a part of it awaiting His majestic return.

These are two barriers to reconciliation - (1) There are things which are not negotiable and (2) we still believe the faith of our fathers - which the radicals do not seem to appreciate or understand. No reconciliation is possible without taking them into account. Then the question is still rhetorical - "Can two walk together less they be agreed?"  The answer is the emphatic "No!" We may be walking in accommodation under the umbrella of one organizational structure; but we are merely going toward that fork in the road where we shall separate and each go in our own direction. It may still be questionable as to which will get the umbrella; but the Mobile Assembly was a clear signal that the fork in the road is right around the corner. It has been for quite clear to some for some time that we have had two churches within one structure. But the Mobile Assembly made it crystal clear that the split is gapingly apparent, and ultimate division appears certain. To pick an illustration from the garden of the fertile mind of the editor of the Journal, it's like the fingerprint on the window pain. Only the trained eye of the investigator can see it; but spray a little white dust on it and it becomes apparent to anyone. It was there all the time. It just wasn't clear to all. So the split has been in the Church for some time. The Mobile Assembly was the "white dust" that made it glaringly apparent to everyone. The radicals at this Mobile Assembly, while rushing headlong toward this split, sought to place the blame on us. The judgment of this Mobile Assembly was expressed that "the techniques and philosophies of 'Concerned Presbyterians' do not promote the peace, unity, edification and purity of Christ's Church". We confess that we have disturbed the peace of the Church by pointing out their modernism for what it is - a heresy. But we have done so in order to attempt to preserve the purity of the Church. For we are convinced that you cannot long have peace without purity. But we emphatically deny responsibility for the split in our church. The onus for this split must rest principally on the shoulders of the radical modernists in our church. The Mobile Assembly forcefully demonstrated that they want no real reconciliation and are determined to push rapidly ahead until the split becomes complete. I would illustrate by comparing a woodsman splitting a block of wood. He finds a small crack in the wood or he makes one, then he inserts his wedge in the crack, then he drives the wedge with his hammer until the sinews of the fiber can hold no longer and suddenly the block of wood splits in two. For years they have been in control of the machinery of the Church and have insisted on striking hammer-like blows driving the wedge deep enough to split the church in two. They are totally responsible for initiating and striking these blows, and must bear the responsibility for the effects thereof. These blows initiated by them at Mobile were:

1. The proposal to amend the provision of our constitution to reduce the consent of number of Presbyteries required for amendment of the Confession of Faith or for full organic union from 3/4ths to 2/3rds.
2. The authorization of appointment of a committee to draft a new Confession of Faith together with Book of Confessions.
3. The appointment of a committee to recommend steps toward union with the UPUSA Church.
4. The endorsement of our continued participation with COCU while a plan is being written.

 Any one of these proposals, if enacted, could very easily be and probably will be the final blow driving the wedge deep enough to suddenly split the church in two. The radical modernists know this. J. Randolph Taylor, one of their leaders, spoke of the desirability of peaceful separation in an article recently published in The Presbyterian Survey. Officials of our Boards and Agencies have spoken privately and publicly of such peaceful separation. J. Randolph Taylor, recently appointed chairman of the committee to plan union with the UPUSA Church, stated in a public speech since his appointment that any plan of union should have an escape clause for churches who would want to withdraw and take their property with them. Surely they know they are splitting the church; but tot hem the end justifies the means. The Mobile Assembly clearly demonstrates their dedication to this alien philosophy. The constitutionality of the Union Synods and Union Presbyteries Amendment was raised at this Assembly by overtures from 16 Presbyteries. It was clearly pointed out in these overtures and in the debate on the floor of the Assembly that at stake was a question of constitutional integrity. It was pointed out that we have bound ourselves together in the framework of The Presbyterian Church in the United States and agreed to be governed by a written constitution, a part of which is The Book of Church Order. This Constitution gives protections to the minority. Among those protections is the provision that full organic union with any other ecclesiastical body can be effected only with the advice and consent of three-fourths of the Presbyteries. The question of constitutional integrity raised by these 16 overtures was a decision by the 1968 Assembly that the Union Synods and Presbyteries amendments would only require a majority vote of Presbyteries instead of a three-fourths vote as the constitution clearly requires. The Permanent Judicial Commission had on two separate occasions advised The General Assembly that

"Any attempt to circumvent this safeguard by ruling otherwise would seriously undermine the whole concept of constitutional government in our church. To be unquestionably constitutional, such amendments must have the advice and consent of 3/4ths of the Presbyteries."

Yet in spite of this admonition from the Permanent Judicial Commission, in spite of the overtures from 16 Presbyteries, in spite of the closeness of the vote on the issue in the Presbyteries showing an almost equally divided church and in spite of the warning on the floor of this Assembly that to flount the constitution by such devious and spurious rationalization was tot destroy the very fabric which binds us together, the radical modernists pushed the amendment to enactment by a vote of about 3 to 1. (sic) The Mobile Assembly thus documented the fact that the constitution is not a barrier to these radical modernists. When they have the votes, they will quickly sack the constitution for their pragmatic goal of the moment. It may split the church; but their immediate end takes precedent over the integrity of the constitution and the unity of the church. The effect of such action by the Mobile Assembly is to warn that the clear language and honest intent of the constitution, by which we have all vowed to be bound, is no longer any protection. They will ignore it when it suits their ends. This portends great danger in the proposed amendment coming from the Mobile Assembly to change the number of Presbyteries required to consent to amendment of the Confession of Faith or to effect full organic union with any ecclesiastical body from 3/4ths to 2/3rds. The constitution clearly states that to so amend these particular provisions of The Book of Church Order will require the advice and consent of three-fourths of the Presbyteries. And if they can't change this provision of the Book of Church Order, they know they can't get approval for a new Confession of Faith, for union with the UPUSA Church, or for adoption of any plan proposed by COCU. Therefore you can look again for devious schemes to ignore the constitution and circumvent its clear provisions. They know they are splitting the church. To them it is justified to attain their goals. But they also must bear the awesome responsibility of having forced the division by the abandonment of their constitutional integrity.

And the strange thing is that in accomplishing their ends these radical modernists use the same methods that they so quickly condemn and attribute to us. They have pretended to disband and dissolve Fellowship of Concerned. They may have discarded the name but not the organization which plans these actions. We have written evidence of a meeting they called and held in Dallas, Texas, in the early fall of 1968, planning strategy for the Mobile Assembly. We have written evidence of a meeting called and held at a suburban Mobile church immediately prior to the Assembly. We have a list of those invited. It consists of some committee chairmen, some officials of our Boards and Agencies, some ad Interim Committee Chairmen, and some Commissioners. About 100 were invited and interestingly about 90 were Teaching Elders. They held this meeting. And if you will look at this list of men invited and read the minutes of the Mobile Assembly you will readily see that they planned and controlled this Assembly through this deliberate, ecclesiastical, political strategy. Yet they would condemn us for even having an organization which is open and above board and certainly is not a secret group planning how to move the puppets.

They scream about circularizing the church when we publish information. But when the original vote was in from all the Presbyteries on the union Presbyteries Amendment and it had been defeated, a letter went forth on the official letterhead of one of the liberal Presbyteries over the signature of the Executive Secretary of that Presbytery to officials in several of the Presbyteries, where the vote had been close, urging them to reconsider their vote. It is said that this was not an official communication but a private letter. But it was received in North Alabama Presbytery as an official communication and referred to the Bills and Overtures Committee for action. And this is one of the reasons that the Synod of Alabama sustained a complaint against North Alabama Presbytery for reconsidering their vote. The point is they use the method most effective when they need it; but they quickly condemn when the shoe is on the other foot.

Hence the "white dust" of the Mobile Assembly makes crystal clear these facts, to wit:

1. It is capitulation not reconciliation they offer.
2. They do not understand that there are things that we cannot and will not negotiate.
3. We still believe the faith of our fathers. We still find ourselves in accord with the vows we took in complete subscriptional integrity; but they do not and want to loose the bounds of them.
4. They are determined to force their program even at the cost of a split in the church.
5. The proposals they initiated at Mobile will, if enacted, split the church in two.
6. In pursuing these proposals, constitutional barriers will be ignored or overridden.
7. Their ecclesiastical, political machinery shall be organized for this final hammer-blow; and we may expect the use of whatever means they deem advisable to accomplish their desired ends.

 The result of all this will be to force a decision. Each minister, each member, and each congregation in our church must decide. There are now three great divisions in the Church. Some tag them with the labels of conservatives, liberals and middle-of-the-roaders. There will be only two when the radical modernists finally and completely spit the church. The gap that now exists can be straddled; but on the division every one must make a choice and go one way or the other. We sincerely now appeal to this middle group. We recognize that you have not always agreed with everything we have done. And we don't claim all our methods or actions to be sacrosanct. We would remind you that we have been on the frontlines of this battle for a long time. We sincerely believe that we can be truly reconciled with you. The two barriers that prevent our reconciliation with the radical modernists do not exist between us. We believe you agree with us on the things that are not negotiable. We believe that you also still subscribe the vows that confess the faith of our fathers. We don't believe you are ready to liquidate our church or to submerge the witness of the Reformed Faith in some non-confessional body. We therefore take this initiative to suggest to you that we can stand together in preservation and continuation of our precious heritage of faith. We urge that you take the mantle of leadership. We will follow. We can walk together; for in the essentials of our faith, we are agreed.

Finally, in this walk, at least for the immediate future, there must be both a negative and a positive aspect.

We are always accused of being negative. Consider this short appoligia for the negative. (sic) When you are not in control and do not choose the issues, you are often required to be negative. For years the radical modernists have been in substantial control of the policy making machinery of our church. They have planned the programs and policies of the church. We have had no voice in the planning. We, of necessity, are cast in the role of opposition to those proposals we cannot support. There must continue this negative aspect until we again regain control. Hence in relationship to the four proposals adopted at Mobile as aforementioned, we must be negative and oppose them.

But we would be the first to confess that we have all too often neglected the positive aspect of our witness. We should rededicate ourselves to faithful obedience to the faith we proclaim. What a promised land it will be when we can concentrate on this positive aspect since we will control the planning. Oh happy day! Could it not be that some of our plight is the result of God's punishment for our disobedience and faithlessness. We need to recall God's great love to us and God's great covenant with us in the words of Moses spoken to God's chosen people:

"The LORD did not set his love upon you nor choose you, because ye were more in number than any people; for ye were the fewest of all people; but because the LORD loved you...Know therefore that the LORD thy God, he is God, the faithful God, which keepeth covenant and mercy with them that love him and keep his commandments to a thousand generations." (Duet. 7:7-9) (sic)

As we long for the day when we shall have peace from this conflict in the Church, we need to again hear and heed the divine conditions that God revealed to Solomon for relief and deliverance of his people:

"If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land." (II Chronicles 7:14)

We need to repent. As we listen to contemporary historians evaluate the progress of Christianity in our times, we are appalled. Consider, for instance, the conclusion of Will and Ariel Durant in their recent book entitled: "The Lessons of History," where in a chapter on Religion and History they state that:

"A thousand signs proclaim that Christianity is undergoing the same decline that fell upon the old Greek religion after the coming of the Sophists and the Greek Enlightenment."

What an arresting conclusion! And yet, in honest self analysis, can we not see our neglect of evangelism in fulfillment of our Lord's great commission? We do need revival. We need to pray fervently - "Lord, revive my church, beginning with me."

And even within the framework of organized religion, we must review the progress of our positive witness to the Reformed Faith. Again let us hear Durant's conclusion:

"Just as the defeat of the Moslems at Tours kept France and Spain from replacing the Bible with the Koran, so the superior organization, discipline, morality, fidelity and fertility of Catholics may cancel the Protestant Reformation and the Greek Enlightenment."

As we look at the church today, do we not see this rush by the ecunemist back to Rome? (sic) Will the Reformation be cancelled? This sends me scurrying back to Scripture for God's covenant with his chosen people:

"Now, therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people: for all the earth is mine: And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation." (Exodus 19:5-6)

But we know that the generation which first heard these words did not become a "kingdom of priest"; for they disobeyed God and determined to go their own way. (sic) God punished their disobedience by requiring that they wander in the wilderness and they were denied entrance into the promised land. What about our priesthood of believers? God's conditions are still - "Repent and Believe" - "Trust and Obey". Again we should rush to Paul's letter to the Romans to read again and know that: 

"the just shall live by faith"

"Abraham believed God and it was counted unto him for righteousness"

"therefore being justified by faith we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ"

"there is therefore no condemnation the them which are in Christ Jesus who walk not after the flesh but after the Spirit"

"But if the Spirit of him the raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you"

"the Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit that we are the children of God, and if children, the heirs; heirs of God, and joint heirs with Christ, if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be glorified together."

"For I am persuaded that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come , nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature shall be able to separate us from the Love of God which is in Christ Jesus our Lord."

This faith shall prevail. But God still requires of his children faithfulness. Could not our generation be wandering in the wilderness of internal religion conflict because of our faithlessness? Consider again the degree of dedication this faith demands as Paul wrote:

"I beseech you, therefore, brethren, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God which is your reasonable service. And be not conformed to this world but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind that ye may prove what is that good and acceptable will of God."

What then has been the measure of our dedication to this positive aspect of our faith? Would you not confess with me our individual failures in this regard? Did not John Calvin in 1545 speak the prayer of our souls when he wrote:

"I greet Thee, who my sure Redeemer art,
My only Trust and Savior of my heart,
Who pain didst undergo for my poor sake;
I pray Thee from our hearts all cares to take.

Thou art the King of mercy and of grace,
Reigning omnipotent in every place;
So come, O King, and our whole being sway;
Shine on us with the light of Thy pure day.

Thou art the life, by which alone we live,
And all our substance and our strength receive;
Sustain us by Thy faith and by Thy power,
And give us strength in every trying hour.

Thou hast the true and perfect gentleness,
No harshness hast Thou and no bitterness;
O grant to us the grace we find in Thee,
That we may dwell in perfect unity.

Our hope is in no other save in Thee;
Our faith is built upon Thy promise free;
Lord, give us peace, and make us calm and sure,
That in Thy strength we evermore endure. Amen"

We must believe and trust God's word - the Bible. We must believe and receive His Son - Jesus Christ as Savior and as Lord. We must pray for we know that "it is not by might, nor by power, but by my Spirit, saith the Lord". Christ Jesus has overcome the world; and as He lives in us so shall we. This is the victory that overcomes the world. As Christ Jesus comes over us so then we shall overcome. His is still His Story. Christ Jesus is our hope of glory. Then in the confidence of this hope let us give ourselves afresh and anew to Him and His service. may the positive aspect of our witness point all men to Christ Jesus. In this faith we take our stand. God being our helper, we can do no other.