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!!!