Accountability, Christian Friendships, and Holiness that Transcends Behavior

Perhaps fueled by the Sonship movement that was prevalent in the PCA in the 80's and 90's, for a long time it was stressed that Christian men needed accountable friendships --another man to whom they could confess anything, and who would hold them accountable for doing the right thing.

Let me state from the first that I think this is a good thing, albeit a difficult one. Men seem to have difficulty forming fast and intimate friendships, particularly in this age when people move about so much. My closest friends are men I rarely see face to face. I don't like this one bit, but it is the way it is.

Yet, as with everything else, we need to make sure we don't confuse a good thing with being the only thing. A man may successfully avoid the pitfalls of lust and greed and the destruction to which they might lead, may treat his wife and children self-sacrificingly well, and may be a generous tither and a devoted churchman and have regular times of study and prayer and still fall far short of godly manhood.

Far too often we have confused holiness with mere behavior: doing and not doing. Yet, Scripture is filled with warnings about doing without being. What do I mean? The fruits of the spirit are not concrete "doing" things --they can't be defined by an accountability list. How are you doing at the love thing? What about the kindness thing? These are matters of the heart. 1 Cor 13 says we can even give our body to be burned (doing in the extreme) and have it all be in vain because of lovelessness (a being thing).

The Christian life is not an easy thing, and accountability is certainly a useful tool towards holiness. It is not, however, the magic pill. No created thing is. This ought to cause us to rely more upon existential connection with the Holy Spirit, who alone can work his true fruits in our lives.

The Ten Marks of a Flesh-Pleaser by Richard Baxter

The signs of a flesh-pleaser or sensualist are these:

1. When a man in his desire to please his appetite, does not do it with a view to a higher end, that is to say to the preparing himself for the service of God; but does it only for the delight itself. (Of course no one does every action consciously with a view to the service of God. Nevertheless, the general manner or habit of a life spent in the service of God is absent for the flesh-pleaser.)

2. When he looks more eagerly and industriously after the prosperity of his body than of his soul.

3. When he will not refrain from his pleasures, when God forbids them, or when they hurt his soul, or when the necessities of his soul call him away from them. But he must have his delight whatever it costs him, and is so set upon it, that he cannot deny it to himself.

4. When the pleasures of his flesh exceed his delights in God, and his holy word and ways, and the expectations of endless pleasure. And this not only in the passion, but in the estimation, choice, and action. When he had rather be at a play, or feast, or other entertainment, or getting good bargains or profits in the world, than to live in the life of faith and love, which would be a holy and heavenly way of living.

5. When men set their minds to scheme and study to make provision for the pleasures of the flesh; and this is first and sweetest in their thoughts.

6. When they had rather talk, or hear, or read of fleshly pleasures, than of spiritual and heavenly delights.

7. When they love the company of merry sensualists, better than the communion of saints, in which they may be exercised in the praises of their Maker.

8. When they consider that the best place to live and work is where they have the pleasure of the flesh. They would rather be where they have things easy, and lack nothing for the body, rather than where they have far better help and provision for the soul, though the flesh be pinched for it.

9. When he will be more eager to spend money to please his flesh than to please God.

10. When he will believe or like no doctrine but "easy-believism," and hate mortification as too strict "legalism." By these, and similar signs, sensuality may easily be known; indeed, by the main bent of the life.

The Forming of the PCA: Part 10

Read Part 1.
Read Part 2.
Read Part 3.
Read Part 4.
Read Part 5.
Read Part 6.

Read Part 7.
Read Part 8.
Read Part 9.

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 10 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.

May 18, 1973
A Message Delivered to the Convocation of Sessions (Atlanta, Georgia)
By W. Jack Williamson Message
"Law and Procedure Or How and Why in 1973"

The Law is the law of love; and the Procedure is to the rescue of the perishing. As our Lord Jesus walked the streets of Jerusalem on his way to Golgotha to the greatest demonstration of that law and to enable that procedure. He turned to those following and said: 

"For if they do these things in a green tree, what shall be done in the dry." (Luke 23:31)

When God thus saw Jesus in the sinner's place, He did not spare Him; and where He finds the unregenerate without Christ, He will not spare them. Yet it is not His will that any should perish. We are called to declare this law of love and to proceed o rescue those perishing: "for whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved." (Rom. 10:13)

This law and this Procedure is foolishness to an unbelieving world; but it is the commission and the compulsion of these who have been truly reborn into the true church of our Lord Jesus Christ. Here is the nature and mission of that church.

Now, over 25 years ago a group of men from The Presbyterian Journal met at the Biltmore Hotel here in Atlanta. They came to preserve a Presbyterian Church in America true to that nature and that mission. We gather again in Atlanta today, a product of their original initiative. Most of us on this program are novices in this battle compared to those veteran defenders of the faith. We were recruited by them, trained by them, directed by them, and sent out to the battlefront by them. Although they may not all agree with us now as to the best course for the immediate future, we all are committed to these same basic principles as to the nature and mission of the Church. We honor and respect these men; and we give thanks to Almighty God for their gallant faithfulness. They have led us to this place and this hour. Praise God for each of them.

As this Convocation of Sessions comes to consider the possible procedure of forming a new ecclesiastical entity in 1973, the question is often and properly asked - "Why 1973?" Or as one has put it - "If I could work in the PCUS in 1972, why must I not continue to do so in 1973, when there is no development radically changing the picture of things?" Why '73, instead of '70, '72, '74 or '80? Let us address ourselves to this issue of procedure. In a word, my reasoning is that my vows of ordination as a Ruling Elder, as I understand them, require me to separate from my beloved church. It is with genuine sadness, many tears, and much soul-searching that I have come to thus see my duty before my God. Our ordination, I promised to study the peace, unity, edification and purity of the Church. For a decade now I have diligently sought to fulfill this vow at various levels in our Church. I have reluctantly concluded that I 

1. Can find little peace in a structure that in its official acts and doings is constantly and consistently contradicting my faith.
2. Can find little unity in a structure that advocates a pluralism and diversity that tolerates unbelief - for me "two cannot walk together less they be agreed."
3. Can find little edification in a structure that continues to embarrass me in its official acts and doings and forces me to spend most of my time in negative reaction and apology.
4. Can find little hope for purity in a structure that permits unbelief to run rampant and has lost its will and ability to discipline.

Thus as I see my duty, it is not that I wish to go but that I must. Others may see their duty differently. We must respect their views as "God alone is Lord of the conscience" and we ask them to respect ours. But, why 1973?

I believe I can best answer this question by summarizing the history of this movement in the past decade. It was at this point in time that some of us were recruited from our comfortable positions in our local churches to enter the battle on a broader scale in Presbytery, Synod and General Assembly. At this time, these aforesaid gallant warriors had won a great victory in the Union fight of the mid-50's. But they had been unable to stem the tide of modernism, liberalism, and radical ecumenism in our Church. The situation continued to get worse rather than better: and they realized it. The Church had already violated its faith and order on several constitutional issues; but they hoped we could return the Church to her former faith and order through a concerted effort by Ruling and Teaching Elders. This we undertook to do; but after about 5 years of much intensive effort, it became obvious to us that humanly speaking it would be impossible to recapture our church. Instead of being able to stop the trends, they seemed to get worse as the liberals intensified their efforts in reaction to our opposition. During this period many more serious constitutional violations of our faith and order were officially adopted and practiced by our Church. I won't list them as Dr. Morton Smith has already pointed to many of them. Suffice it to say that it became clear that the historic witness of our beloved Church was gradually being liquidated; and for those who felt a duty to preserve i , division became the only answer. From that point on the issue of division has been settled; and the only issue was timing and procedure.  It was then we sought a method of peaceful realignment hoping that men of good will would prevail. Not the only but the best method for such peaceful realignment seemed to be an acceptable escape clause in the Plan for Union with the UPCUSA. Our liberal friends promised us this method; and we accepted their promises in good faith. We chose and recommended this method as the best constitutional procedure for such a division. We warned that unreasonable delays would be taken as a breach of good faith. We made preparation for the division we humanly saw as inevitable. But, in February, 1973, our liberal opposition in the PCUS succeeded in closing this door for peaceful realignment by discarding the Plan of Union and delaying its presentation for vote indefinitely. Even though strenuously requested by me as the conservative representative thereon, this Union Committee refused to commit itself to any "escape" clause. Thus this best method for constitutional division became no longer a viable possibility in the foreseeable future. The abandonment of this method by the liberals was an act of pure ecclesiastical political expediency. They broke faith with us in 1973 and have forced us to move to an alternative procedure. One of their frank leaders said to me in Dallas -- "We will force you conservatives to do what you must and after you have done it we will regroup and reevaluate our position; and in the meantime we will push for more union Presbyteries and more de facto union at the administrative level of the Boards and Agencies; and after you have gone we will redraw the Presbytery lines so that we won't have any trouble passing any plan we want. It may take 10 years but we can wait."

This is what has happened; and this is why 1973. We have never contended that the use of the "escape" clause in the Plan of Union was the only constitutional issue for division or only constitutional method for realignment. We have always felt and maintained that many constitutional breaches exist that justify division; but we thought the "escape" clause was the best method to accomplish it. We now feel that method has been taken away by the liberals for this decade, at least, and perhaps forever. This happened in 1973. We have always maintained that we who agree in principle should move together. We are convinced that if we wait longer, major fragmentation will occur. In order to maintain the significant corporate witness of a  Church loyal to Scripture and the Reformed Fatih, we must move now in 1973. Perhaps it is important for some of you that we document this historical progression. Let me summarize my statements published in the Presbyterian Journal as documented proof of the truth and consistency of our position.

1. Almost a decade ago, we began by trying to return our beloved Church to its primary mission. In 1965 we wrote:

"To my mind the Church being the Bride of Christ has as her primary mission to proclaim the Gospel of Jesus Christ for the salvation of the souls of sinners and thereafter to nurture them in the faith. But there seems to be designed a deliberate effort in the Church to change the attitude of the average church member toward this fundamental message and mission..."

"There is a great danger that the Church will become just another social agency with tremendous potential for good community service but with only an incidental relationship to salvation of souls through faith in Jesus Christ..."

"It has been my observation that wherever and whenever the inspiration and authority of the Word as Inscripturated is attacked, the person and work of the Word Incarnated is demeaned. The work of Jesus Christ in the world becomes equated with all the noble causes laid before society. The zeal for the Gospel of Jesus Christ is lost and the temper of the times dictates the religious cause for the day..."

"Our principal effort should be toward the development of a constructive program of inspiration, information and instruction which the Holy Spirit may rightfully use to pour out a real spiritual revival in the pew..."

2. But by the time of the General Assembly in 1969 it was obvious that we would not be able so to return our Church. We wrote then that this Mobile Assembly with its change in our position on evolution, its unconstitutional enactment of the union presbyteries amendment, its authorization of a committee to draft a new Confession of Faith; its appointment of a Committee on Union with UPCUSA, and its endorsement of our continued participation in COCU made these facts clear:

"It is capitulation not reconciliation they offer..."
"They do not understand that we cannot and will not negotiate some things..."
"They are determined to force their program even at the cost of a split Church..."
"Their ecclesiastical, political machinery will be organized for this final hammer blow..."
"The result of all this will be to force a decision by each minister, each member, each congregation in our Church..."

3. By 1970 a number of major constitutional violations had been enacted; and we were forced to look for the best method for peaceful realignment. We suggested such a unique method at the Memphis Assembly that year in the form of the creation of provisional bodies for those who wanted to remain in the Church for the time being and preserve their right to vote and yet be guaranteed the right to withdraw with their property. During the Assembly we were called into conference in the minister's study at this great Second Church in Memphis by the two co-chairmen of the union committee. They promised such a method of peaceful realignment through an acceptable escape clause in the plan of union. We agreed to wait, but wrote:

"The scoffers of our day are the radical, determined ecumenists who have a timetable for the liquidation of the historic witness of the Presbyterian Church in the United States..."

"In my judgment, our timetable should be flexible because we are committed to a principle rather than a structure. We are committed to the preservation of a corporate witness to the truth as revealed in the holy Scriptures. This involves us in several possibilities:

"1. The possibility of revival within the present structure does exist..."
"2. Peaceful realignment might be accomplished as the existing structure is divided among men of good will..."
"3. Finally, it is always possible that a sufficient number of the issues proposed in the timetable of the radical ecumenists will be defeated and they will then leave us with our existing structure..."

4. After the 1971 Assembly in evaluating our position, a consensus was reached and published as follows: "We 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 agree to move now toward a continuing body of congregations and presbyteries loyal to Scriptures and the Westminster Standards." But to implement this consensus we suggested guidelines dictated by Christian statesmanship, to-wit:

1. We must move only as God's Holy Spirit moves us. "For it is not by might, nor by power, but by my Spirit, saith the Lord of hosts."
2. We must curb our human impatience and impetuosity and not take precipitous and premature action.
3. We most move together.
4. We must move with honor.

But in suggesting that we wait on the promised "escape clause" in the plan of union, we wrote:

"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..."

And so the Steering Committee was appointed to make such preparation.

5. By 1972 we had suggested a plan for a continuing Church. It was to support any plan of union with the UPUSA which contains an acceptable escape clause permitting local congregations and ministers to elect not to enter the union. We supported the plan as the most effective constitutional method for peaceful realignment. And we still believe it was the best method for the reasons we cited. But we were careful to write:

"Notice we say 'a' plan and not 'the' plan, and we use the indefinite article for several reasons:

"We recognize that the sovereign Holy Spirit may be pleased to so revive our Church that revisions in this plan may be necessary..."
"If proponents of union were to seek to defeat us with unreasonable delays, our plan would need to be changed.""

6. In August 1972, we wrote of a deliberate effort to postpone indefinitely the vote on the plan of union. We restated our often announced position on such a delay, as we wrote of the plan:

"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 view of this possibility we outlined alternatives to the plan such as General Assembly walk-out, Presbytery withdrawal, Presbytery dismissal of individual churches, and individual church withdrawal.

7. And so we come to the meeting of the Committee on Presbyterian Union in Dallas, Texas, in February, 1973. We came after spending 6 days in the preceding six weeks with a subcommittee on drafting. We came with a plan ready to be presented to the 1973 General Assemblies for vote. In its three day session in Dallas the Committee never discussed the substance of the plan they had been working on for almost four years. Instead they voted to cast aside this plan and start anew writing another plan. This new plan will not be presented until 1974 and then "for study only". The members of the Committee from the PCUS had succeeded in getting an indefinite delay. Before the vote to delay, I made it clear to the Committee that I felt that you would consider such a delay as a breach of faith. They voted the delay with only two dissenting votes -- mine and that of Mr. William Thompson, Stated Clerk of the UPCUSA. Next morning, in full open session, Mr. Thompson stated to the Committee that he thought the Committee had been "dishonest" and betrayed the confidence placed in you by the conservatives in the PCUS. These were his words -- not mine. He then spent 30 minutes chastising the Committee for their conduct and particularly blaming the PCUS members. Other members of the Committee from the UPCUSA privately apologized to me for what they felt was unfair conduct by the PCUS members and a breach of good faith by them.

We had accepted the promises of these PCUS leaders, the overt and covert, and trusted them in good faith as men of good will. They have broken that trust and confidence. We cannot put our faith in them again -- for they admit candidly that their decisions are not motivated by principle but by expediency. And those who wait for the constitutional issue of union with UPCUSA wait at the whim and the mercy of the liberals as expediency dictates, both as to timetable and the probability of an acceptable escape clause.

Some say they will be with us but must wait on the UPCUSA union issue. They reason that they feel a justifiable division requires such a grave constitutional issue. They say that such a union would raise a major theological issue as it would require them to be united with a group with whom they cannot agree as to doctrine. They cite the Confession of 1967 as a major theological, doctrinal deviation by the UPCUSA; and they say they cannot be linked in union with a body which subscribes thereto. To those who so reason, I would respectfully suggest that such a judgment is a matter of degree rather than a matter of principle. I would suggest two reasons --

1. Most of us would admit that the PCUS has violated its Constitution on numerous occasions in the past 20 years. So it is not a matter that UPCUSA union would be the only constitutional deviation. It would be only one among many. For you it might be "major" enough to justify division. But the mere fact that you use the adjective "major" proves to me that you are relegating these other Constitutional breaches to the "minor" category. And when you thus begin to reason between "major" and "minor" Constitutional violations, I suggest that your conclusion must be based on the degree of the violation and not on the principle of Constitutional breach.
2. The Constitutional change of the Book of Church Order which permits Union Presbyteries has already violated the principle of our union with a body with whose doctrine we do not agree. UPCUSA union would not change that principle; it would only change the degree of the union. Our BCO 18-6 (13) provides that our General Assembly can receive under its jurisdiction only those "other ecclesiastical bodies whose organization is conformed to the doctrine and order of this Church." In approving the Union Presbyteries Amendment to the BCO, our Church has constitutionally concluded that we agree in doctrine and order with the UPCUSA. This would include the Confession of 1967. We are as fully linked in Constitutional principle with the UPCUSA now as we would be under a full plan of union. The difference is only matter of degree. We now have only 9 presbyteries united and then we would have them all. But as a Constitutional principle, we sit with them as fully and duly elected representatives in the courts of the Church -- General Assembly, Synod and Presbytery. Without any further Constitutional change, every single presbytery in our Church could be united with the UPCUSA. Union with the UPCUSA is already a Constitutional fact. Now you say that you will leave when three-fourths of the presbyteries adopt a plan of union with the UPCUSA. To be logically consistent would you not have to leave when three-fourths of the presbyteries become united as union presbyteries? Then do you not see that your conclusion is not based on the violation of the principle of Constitutional union with UPCUSA but on the degree thereof.

Thus I would contend that in Constitutional principle we are already united with the UPCUSA. And those, who see this union as intolerable, have now every Constitutional principle violated which will be violated with full organic union. You may be reluctant to move now because the degree of union is not sufficient for you; but you cannot logically argue that the principle of Constitutional union has already been settled.

Now let us turn to consider alternative procedures for those who are ready now, in 1973, to raise the banner for a new Church loyal to Scripture and the Reformed Faith. We can eliminate a General Assembly walk-out; for most conservative commissioners have decided not to even attend this General Assembly. This leaves three alternatives: (1) withdrawal of entire Presbytery, (2) Presbytery dismissal of individual churches, and (3) unilateral withdrawal of individual churches by congregational action. Presbytery withdrawal still remains a good method; but since few Presbyteries have any real possibility of such an action, we feel it better to discuss the details of this method directly with these Presbyteries. A Presbytery can dismiss a church with its property; but the present attitude of the liberals poses problems with this method. They have taken hard line; and I predict will even get tougher. It is difficult for me to understand how men, who bear the name of Christ, can display to a watching world such a harsh, mean and vindictive attitude toward their brothers in Christ. A few months ago they seemed willing to heed the advice of our beloved Moderator, Dr. L. Nelson Bell. In speaking to the Committee on Presbyterian Union in Charlotte last year, in his first public appearance as Moderator, Dr. Bell said he favored the "escape" clause because he thought it "unchristian" and "immoral" to try to coerce a congregation to remain in a voluntary organization as the church when they could not in good conscience support it. But as time disclosed that this movement was of mammoth proportions and thus threatened the power and purse of the liberals, their attitude began to harden under the advice of their leaders. Their public voice, the Presbyterian Outlook, actually chastised their followers for being fair with us. Can you imagine Christians being criticized for being "fair" with other Christians? Well in its April 9, 1973, issue this voice of the liberals wrote for the world to reach these words --

"Some Presbyteries who appear to be taking a casual attitude toward the dismissal of church property...need to be reminded of their pledged obligations..."

"In some cases we have heard that presbytery executives under a distorted understanding of fair play or their own responsibilities have actually counselled dissidents as to courses to pursue..." (sic)

"It is folly to permit the alienating effort to move ahead unchallenged..."

Following this line of advice, we have seen liberals across the church begin to adopt this tough, harsh, and vindictive tack. Hence, even in a Presbytery that feels that it is "unchristian" and "immoral" to try to coerce a congregation to remain against the conscience of its majority membership; and even if such a Presbytery votes to dismiss such a congregation with its property, there is always one or more liberal ministers in that Presbytery who will file a complaint against such a Presbytery dismissal. The "ruse" reason is used that it is to protect the rights of the loyal minority in that congregation. We know it is a "ruse"; because we have been the loyal minority in the PCUS for years, and they have never shown any inclination to even listen to, much less protect, our rights and positions. It is obvious that such malicious tactics are designed to discourage congregations from taking such action for dismissal, and to put such congregations on notice that they will be tied up in the church courts for years if they take this procedure. Hence if this procedure is used, we suggest that once the Presbytery acts dismissing the local church, any complaints to higher church courts to be ignored. Just take the position that you have been legally dismissed and no longer subject to any ecclesiastical court jurisdiction. And if the liberals want to take it to a civil court to try to get your property, let them bear the public onus of carrying Christian brothers to a civil court against the injunctions of the Bible.

But probably for most congregations, the third alternative is the best present procedure. Just call a congregational meeting and vote to withdraw and so notify your Presbytery. Thereafter, politely refuse to entertain any commission or committee on the principle that you are no longer subject to ecclesiastical jurisdiction. Once again this procedure could bring a civil lawsuit over your property. But again the liberals would have the public onus of beginning the lawsuit against the express will of the majority of the congregation. Many constitutional lawyers feel that this right is preserved to the local congregation under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to our U.S. Constitution.

You will readily recognize that there are perils in all three procedures. You my end up in a civil court battle for your church property. It begins to be quite obvious that it is your church property that most interests the liberals. In this same April 9, 1973 issue of the Presbyterian Outlook they gave their motive away when it was written

"it would appear that a presbytery would be better advised to take the initiative to dissolve the pastorate, and, where required, dissolve the Church..."

Why "dissolve the church"? Because under our BCO when a church has been dissolved and no disposition has been made of its property, the property goes to presbytery (BCO 6-3). Thus they have clearly announced that they want your property. This is further proven by their willingness to let small congregations without much property go without protest; but they usually contest the dismissal or withdrawal of a church that owns choice property, particularly if it is free of debt. Now, we have an obligation to preserve and protect the property that has been purchased with the gifts and sacrifices of our God-fearing forefathers; and if forced to do so, we serve notice here and now that we shall fiercely battle them for it. But, do not let us be like them. We declare here and now that property is not the main issue. If we are forced by our convictions to risk the loss of all property, no matter how dear, for the sake of the honor and integrity of the Church of the Lord Jesus Christ, such a risk we are fully prepared to take. We prefer it not; but we will not shrink from it, if God requires it of us. We will not put our pew ahead of our Lord.

So the die is cast. To me our course is clear. Some may say, "Why 1973?"; but I say "Why wait?" If conscience dictates that it is your duty to wait, then you must wait, then you must wait, you should wait, you dare not do otherwise. But if not, why wait? Now I suggest that the decision for a minister and the decision for a congregation is somewhat different. A minister may go at any time without peril -- now or 5 years from now -- but if you are responsible for a congregation and for those yet unborn, what will be preached and taught in your church 5, 10, 20 years from now. You have other considerations to think about. What then can a congregation gain by waiting? If yours is a congregation that does not use PCUS literature, and does not support the PCUS program, then you have already in effect, separated. What can you possibly gain by waiting? Surely you don't believe that you can reform the PCUS? What then do you gain by waiting? But you may lose by waiting. You may lose the only chance you will ever have to leave and take your property. Do you really believe there will ever be a Plan of Union with an acceptable escape clause? Are you willing to wait 5 to 10 years on the speculative chance? Is it not true that as your conservative brothers leave your position in your presbytery is weakened? What is going to be your position when your presbytery is restructured as it is surely going to be? Is there not less chance of civil lawsuits when churches go in mass rather than later to go in isolated situations? Is it not better to join with your Christian brothers of like mind and raise now the Standard in our beloved Southland of a new church loyal to Scripture and the Reformed Faith? To me answers are loud and clear. Move now, together, toward a Church reborn.

And as we move, our attitude to others is most important. We move with determination and resolve, but with tears, sorrow and mourning for the necessity that is laid upon us. Regardless of the attitudes or actions of others, we will remember that we represent the Lord Jesus Christ, who is the King and Head of the Church. As his ambassadors to the watching world, we must let this mind be in us which was in Christ Jesus. Let men everywhere notice in us the three effects of nearness to Jesus -- humility, holiness and happiness. To those who would be unfair and harsh toward us we hear Him say --

"But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use and persecute you."

To those who agree with us in principle but disagree as to procedure, we extend our hand of continued fellowship and good will and our open invitation and plea to join us soon. For you we hear Him say --

"Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word."

To you who may be called upon to suffer for this cause, we hear Him say --

"Blessed are you when men shall revile you and persecute you, and say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake. Rejoice and be exceeding glad; for great is your reward in heaven..."

And as we move, let there be a great outpouring of prayer. Let us remember the people of God in the wilderness when Joshua fought in the valley and Moses prayed on the mountain. The prayers of Moses discomforted the enemy more than the fighting of Joshua. Yet both were needed. It is remarked that Joshua never grew weary in fighting, but Moses grew weary in praying. It is far easier to fight than to pray. The more spiritual an exercise; the more difficult it is for flesh and blood to maintain it. Intermittent supplication will avail little as we move. We must wrestle all day every day and hold up our hands "until the going down of the sun."

Let me close with a statement made by Charles Haddon Spurgeon about 80 years ago. Listen carefully to the exhortation of the great man of God as he so aptly describes our present opportunity.

"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 your 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."

 The Law is the law of Love; and the procedure is to rescue the perishing, Godspeed!!! Amen.

Report Teaches Us A Lot About Where We Are

The following report was submitted and adopted into the minutes of Central Mississippi Presbytery of the Presbyterian Church in the United States (April 13-15, 1926).

Your Committee on Sabbath would respectfully submit the following report:

Your committee on Sabbath Observance can at the very outset but express regret that they are forced to come again before you with the same mournful statement as in the past, that they have nothing either bright or encouraging to present, but rather the reverse.

It pains our hearts to say it, yet truth demands the statement, that while the Christian world seems to be pressing with unwonted strides toward the goal in other directions, aiming to get nearer to the Scripture ideal, in bringing the world more and more under the influence of gospel truth, yet in the matter of Sabbath observance, in stead of lifting up, it seems actually more and more to be losing its hold upon the masses; and just here we are confronted with the startling inquiry, whether the world, with all its boasted progress, can really and truly be getting upon a higher plane, while the Sabbath of the Lord remains in the dust, and this sign of divine sovereignty lies trampled under the foot of man.

We would not be guilty of gross pessimism, or painting the cloud too dark, but while some of our people are fairly well observing the Sabbath, yet it is rapidly assuming the characteristics of the continental Sabbath, so far as the masses are concerned, being by them regarded as a day of recreation and pleasure, and even of business, if necessary, and especially is this true in the cities and towns and sections of country adjacent to them. If we would be called upon to say why this is the case, we would unhesitatingly say that it is due to the apathy and indifference of a large part of God’s professed people.

If all the professed Christian in America were united in their opposition, the evil would soon be abated. It is when “men sleep” that the enemy does the work of “sowing tares.”

Is the Sabbath a divine institution of permanent and universal obligation? Is it of God and did He intend it for all mankind? These are the questions that lie at the root of the present-day Sabbath day controversy. We unhesitatingly answer, YES, it’s a divine institution; YES, God intended it for all mankind, but many are losing a sense of the sacred quality of the day. Many are turning it from a holy to a holiday, and the crying need of our time is to have a sense of sacredness of the day revived in the hearts of the people. It is useless to talk about the manner in which the Sabbath should be observed, unless the people are convinced of its sacred character.

As to the best course to be pursued in meeting this growing and great evil, your committee is wholly unable to say. They would, however, venture one or two suggestions.

The first is, that as the matter is more directly and intimately under the eye and purview of the pastors and officers of the church, your committee would urge upon them the duty and responsibility of constantly keeping this subject before the people, with a view of awakening a deeper interest. We feel that much can be done in this way. Second, that the pastors and officers by their utterances and example put all the people on their guard against the great danger of becoming — by their patronage — “partakers of other men’s sins” unwittingly though it may be.

Respectfully submitted,

C.P. Colmery, Chairman

The Church as Community or Speaking God's Yes and No

Christian community sounds very attractive in today's consumerist world, at least until you try to practice it. Many people would like Christian community to be like an affirmative therapy group, where only sympathy and support are ever given.

Truth be told, Christian community is more like a family. The arena is one of love, but true family love must also involve correction of thoughts and behaviors. The motive behind fatherly discipline of children, however imperfect, is always love. Every parent, however, will make selfish mistakes in discipline: disciplining a child because he has become an annoyance, or has made a public spectacle, rather than patient guiding of the heart. This can happen in the church, too.

When someone steps out on a limb, and attempts to offer some sort of course correction to us, we can have several responses. A common one is resentment: "Who does he think he is?" I know this because I have been there. People have dared to come to me, and offered helpful critique. I fumed. I fussed. I self-justified. I took it to God. They were right, and I was humbled, and set about correcting course. Not easy. Not fun.

The most common one in today's church is leaving. Find an easier place, where we can hide. Frankly, this is part of the appeal of the mega-churches. This is not just my inkling; I have heard many people voice this as just their reason for leaving a smaller church, where they had to shoulder some of the burden of leadership, or service, or "everyone being into my business." Biblical community is uncomfortable, and I want to hide from it.

Incidentally, this impulse is behind the failure of many marriages, and the pervasive lonesomeness many feel in our world. We don't want to be hurt; we figure solitariness is safety, and there we can always get our own way, so we cut ourselves off from anyplace where we might have to bend or yield our will to another, or be hurt. In our Wal-Mart culture, it is easy to do. We can go places and be surrounded by more people than ever before, and yet be lonely, because we do not connect.

This shows itself in the virtual world, too. Real relationships are too costly, too messy, and inconvenient, so we enter into a world of artificial reality, where we can project ourselves to be whoever we want, and "befriend" those who ask nothing of us, and who can be "un-friended" at will, and who, incidentally, are not their real selves, either.

I think many Bible-believing churches are succeeding today by speaking only the pleasant truths. When the unpleasant truths are brought to bear upon us personally, then we can assuage our consciences by going to other "Bible-believing" churches where the unpleasant truths are simply ignored, as if by doing so, we can escape God's all-searching gaze. This is a fool's errand. While we can escape scrutiny on our lives for awhile, and perhaps find some rest of conscience, or (worse) a passive acceptance of our self-destructive sinfulness, God always sees.

Life in community is no easy thing. God did not intend for it to be easy. The alternative is Hell --being left alone, with ones' self, to become one's worst self-indulgent, self-destructive self, with a worm that never dies, a fire that never goes out, and a thirst that is never quenched.

But, life in community here will often cause us to cry out for the perfection of the life of community in the world to come. Its very imperfection shows us it is a pale copy of the true. The father's house has not mansions, but rooms. Heaven is a place of dwelling together, shorn of all that makes dwelling together here difficult and painful. Yet, life together here can give us a warm foretaste of glory. Lewis said if we would have pleasure, we must have pain too. That's the deal. Those who cut themselves off from the pain, miss the pleasure. If I never connect to another living soul, I will never face the bereavement of death. If I am a faceless face in a crowd among the people of God, who will ever help me see my own sins and shortcomings, let alone show up with a casserole when I am sick?

God save us from our selfish selves....

The Doctrine of Intended Unintended Consequences

I don't know who first said it, but it makes sense: Aim at happiness and you will miss it, but aim at virtue and you will quite possibly have happiness thrown in.

The Christian might say: Aim at happiness and you will miss it, but aim at loving submission to God and others, and you will certainly have joy thrown in. It is an intended unintended consequence. The goal really is joy, but the pathway is not selfish pleasure-seeking, but questing after God and following his way.

Church life is similar. Most every church longs to grow. Growth, we think, means health. Indeed, growth can mean health, but it doesn't always mean health. Some trees grow fast, but are structurally weak, and quick to blow over in a storm. Other trees grow slow, but grow strong. It is no accident that the life-cycle of many mega-churches appears to be one generation.

Far too often, churches think they grow by being attractional: having pretty people and offering every possible service: in short, being a "good" church. It is true: churches do grow that way, at least those that are the best at what they offer. The problem is: there can only be one best, by definition.

Yet, God has purposed that there be many churches. Not every church can be the "best." In fact, aiming to be the best is like aiming at happiness --probably the church will fail, because pride attaches itself to being best, like some voracious lamphrey sucking the life out of its host salmon.

The church should concern itself with "doing good" more than "being good." It should be more concerned about becoming a place that employs the saints with works of kingdom service than a place that exists to meet all their felt needs. If we are doing our job as parents, we are not meeting all our children's felt needs. In fact, the good parent knows that the worst thing he could do for his child is meet all his felt needs. The best thing he can do for his child is to love him, and to train him in the primary virtues --the most primary one being, if Calvin is right, self-denial. It goes without saying that this is done in the warm womb of love, support, encouragement, and loving correction. And, it goes without saying that people will have their needs met, even as they are encouraged to give, as well as receive.

If the church is to become even more a place of joy, then it must be about the way of taking up the cross: a place where the self is denied, and we lose ourselves in service. That sounds glorious, until we realize that service may be cleaning up after floods, or teaching elementary Sunday School. Too many people wait for some grand opportunity of heroic self-sacrifice, when "mundane" kingdom service is right in front of them waiting to be done. In fact, the heroic may be just another opportunity for self-indulgence, when the mundane and seeming unimportant task is the one that requires true self-sacrifice.

What is true for individuals is also true for the church. A church that wants to be noticed is seeking the wrong thing. The church should concern herself with doing good, and leave the results up to God. If the church is busy about kingdom activity --doing good to the least of these, proclaiming the gospel, extending the hand of mercy, and so on-- it may please God to grant her growth, or it may not. That is God's concern, not ours. Yet, there will be a sense of kingdom vitality about a church that does good, whereas the "good church" can all appear rather plastic and shallow.

In fact, the church doing good is just the church being the church. The truth is upheld. Works of mercy ratify the truth of the message. The love that grows in the hearts of the people shows they have been born from above. Their self-denial brings about a satisfaction for which they have sought and longed, but never been able to find in the world, and it pours over the edges of their lives and becomes attractive to others.

That is my prayer for my church.

Sola Scriptura: Do We Live Like We Believe This Doctrine?

In the Cambridge Declaration, which is a declaration by the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals, the first thesis states the following on Sola Scriptura:

Thesis One: Sola Scriptura
We affirm the inerrant Scripture to be the sole source of written divine revelation, which alone can bind the conscience. The Bible alone teaches all that is necessary for our salvation from sin and is the standard by which all Christian behavior must be measured.

We deny that any creed, council or individual may bind a Christian's conscience, that the Holy Spirit speaks independently of or contrary to what is set forth in the Bible, or that personal spiritual experience can ever be a vehicle of revelation.

This is a pretty good representation of the Reformation doctrine of Sola Scriptura. But the question that we need to ask is, "Do we really live according to this doctrine?"  Doctrine should always lead to practice or practical living.  For example, the grace and love of Christ that we see in Scripture demands that we live in a certain way.  In Romans, chapters 1-11 are usually looked as the doctrine portion of the book and how does chapter 12 begin?  With how should we now live in view of these doctrines?

"Therefore I urge you, brethren, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies a living and holy sacrifice, acceptable to God, which is your spiritual service of worship. And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, so that you may prove what the will of God is, that which is good and acceptable and perfect." 

So do we really live in accordance with the Scripture's doctrine of Sola Scriptura?  Let me just pose some thoughts and let you answer this question yourself.  When you discipline your children, I would hope you tell them what they have done wrong, teaching them with correction.  But when they have done wrong, do you communicate to your children that they have done wrong based on your authority or Scripture's authority?  In other words, do you communicate to them what God says about what they have done or do you communicate to them what you think they have done wrong?  When you discipline them do you communicate that God commands you to discipline them or do you communicate to them that you have to discipline them because you have to?  Do you see the difference?  One way of disciplining is based on Scripture and God alone being Lord of the conscience, whereas the other way of disciplining is based on individuals or something outside of Scripture binding the conscience.

I really want to investigate this, look what it says in the thesis above.  No creed, council, or individual may bind the conscience.  You can't bind another's conscience, you can't bind your own conscience, only the Lord can bind the conscience.  So where do you attempt to bind another's conscience, where do you try to bind your own conscience by your logic or by your experience?  It can't be this way, the sole source that can bind the conscience is the Lord and He does so through the Scriptures.  If we are going to preach the Word as Pastors, we have to preach Scripture.  If we are going to evangelize, you can try all your fancy methods of evangelism, but only the Word can bind the conscience.  Are you living in accordance with this doctrine?

The Forming of the PCA: Part 9

Read Part 1.
Read Part 2.
Read Part 3.
Read Part 4.
Read Part 5.
Read Part 6.
Read Part 7.
Read Part 8.

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 9 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.  

Editor's note: This should have been posted as Post 2, but there were some problems finding the article.

Summary By Dr. G. Aiken Taylor, Editor of The Presbyterian Journal

"What The 1968 Assembly Did To You"

The Presbyterian Journal. Vol. 27. No. 9. June 26, 1968. Pgs. 14-15.

Sometimes it is hard to develop an interest in what goes on at top Church meetings because the decisions do not seem to affect us down in our local congregations. 

Let's look at the decisions of the 1968 General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church US as these might be translated into action in the next few years. Imagine, if you will, that you are a modern Rip Van Winkle coming back to your congregations in 1972, after an absence of four years. You could meet these (imaginary) situations:

• Your Session is discussing a note just received from the presbytery. In order to implement the instructions of the 1968 Assembly, your congregation is about to be grouped with two other congregations into a three-church field because it is smaller than 250 members.
• Your son has just finished his seminary training and is about to take charge of his first congregation. But the Selective Service laws have been changed as the 1968 Assembly requested. The young minister is classified 1-A by his draft board and inducted into the Army.
• You make a generous gift to the Rally Day Offering. Later you discover that some of it was sent to a militant civil rights action group.
• You make another generous gift to the Witness Offering during the World Missions season. Later you discover that some of your gift was sent to support a strike by maintenance men in a large city.
• You go to a presbytery meeting as an elder representing your church. There you find a large group of unfamiliar faces. You discover these belong to the representatives of the United Church of Christ in your area, with whose synod your own synod has formally invited.
• At that same presbytery meeting you are introduced to other strangers. These are the ministers and elders of the United Presbyterian churches in your area. Your presbytery has entered into full organic union with the corresponding presbytery of the UPUSA Church.
• At the next meeting of your session a letter is read from the presbytery's General Pastor informing you that unless you stop using that non-Presbyterian literature you are using in your Sunday School, the Committee on Pastoral Relations will recommend to the presbytery that your minister be divested of his office, your congregation dissolved and your property sold. (this already is happening in the Presbyterian Church US. After RCA merger it will be more easily done.)
• You are a salesman for a company producing photo products. You call on one of your best customers, TRAV (the television, radio and audio-visuals arm of the Church). You are told, regretfully, that since the Assembly supported the use of economic pressure they have been told to cancel your account. The Church has decided to boycott the products of your company because the company's hiring policies have been judged discriminatory.
• When you get home from work your wife tells you that the police have come to the house and confiscated your favorite bird gun under the new law against the possession of firearms. The law was passed after the Assembly adopted its resolution urging control of both sales and possession of deadly weapons.
• In the mail there is a packet of study materials for you (as chairman of the evangelism committee of the session).  These you are expected to use in preparation for a season of evangelism in your congregation. Because the Church has continued to reaffirm its commitment to the National Council of Churches it continues to use study and program materials prepared in New York by the NCC. Those in your hands are from the Division of Evangelism. they are largely devoted to riots in the cities and the equalization of wealth among the population.
• The next mail contains a copy of the new plan of union which will unite your Church (as a member of COCU) with eight other denominations into a super-Church of some 23 million members - if approved by the next Assembly.
• You make a sacrificial gift on Easter Sunday for overseas relief. Later you discover that some of your money went behind the Iron Curtain to benefit the people of a Communist country and that it was distributed without reference to the Gospel.
• Last Sunday your minister questioned a couple on profession of faith. For the first time you noticed that the questions he used were quite unfamiliar to you. They seemed to have very little in common with the questions that you have heard ever since you made your own profession of faith. Your minister explains that, under the new constitution (you have now merged with the RCA), he can make up his own questions as there are none specified in the Book of Church Order. He seems relieved that he doesn't have to use the old questions. Nobody believes those things any longer, he says.
• Your minister preaches a sermon in which he says that pre-marital sex relations are perfectly all right if the couple truly love each other. When you protest he reminds you that the 1968 Assembly showed a very strong inclination to support the "new morality" and he was merely following through.
• In that morning service t h e minister also read a letter from the Council on Church and Society of the denomination calling on Presbyterians to join in support of a particular bill before Congress. (sic) The letter has not been approved by the Assembly, but under the new rules it doesn't have to be.
• A rich uncle dies and leaves you a fortune. In gratitude you write a check for a large sum and send it undesignated to the presbytery's treasurer, thinking of the desperate need of our missionaries overseas. The letter of acknowledgment tells you that the money will be sent to some British missionaries in Ghana who have been financially hurt by the devastation of the pound.

Are these imagined cases extreme? Not as extreme as you might think. They are all quite possible under actions of the 1968 Assembly, or under policies announced to the Assembly. They constitute illustrations of the way Assembly actions are not "afar off," but affect you where you live.

The Forming of the PCA: Part 8

Read Part 1.
Read Part 2.
Read Part 3.
Read Part 4.
Read Part 5.
Read Part 6.
Read Part 7.

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 8 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.

For The Advisory Convention in Ashville, N.C. In August, 1973

By W. Jack Williamson

Draft of "A Plan For A Continuing Church"

The program of the radical ecumenists is forcing a division of the Presbyterian Church in the United States. We have attempted to fight, thwart and reverse these trends within the courts of our beloved Church. We may have been able to slow down some of them; but generally these determined radicals have relentlessly and successfully pressed onward. They would eliminate the distinctive witness of our beloved Church and immerse us in some larger group for organizational unity. The first step is union with the Northern Presbyterian Church, then into COCU, and eventually union with Rome. This insistence of these radical ecumenists on promoting and pushing these plans for the liquidation of our Church has forced those of us, who wish to continue a Presbyterian Church local to Scripture and the Reformed Faith, to develop a plan for such a continuing Church. They have forced us to accept the apparent inevitability of division in the Presbyterian Church in the United States. We are determined to continue a Presbyterian Church loyal to Scripture and the Reformed Faith. Thus we would be foolish and derelict in our duty if we did not make preparation for such a division. Hence we are suggesting a plan for a continuing body of congregations and presbyteries loyal to the Scriptures and the Westminster Standards.

Notice that we said "a" plan, not "the" plan. We use the definitive article "a" rather than "the" for several reasons:

1. We recognize that the Sovereign Holy Spirit may be pleased so to revive our Church that revisions in this plan may be necessary. We do not limit the power of God. We know that God can bring a revival that can convict and change those in positions of leadership in our Church. In our human judgment, we see no signs of any such revival; but we do pray fervently for the same.
2. We think this is the best plan at this moment; but you and others are to participate in the finalizing of any plan. Hence we fully recognize that this plan may be revised as you suggest revisions that would improve it.
3. Future events may require revisions in this plan. This plan envisions the division of the Church at the time of adoption of a plan of union with the UPUSA Church. (sic) The radical ecumenists have set such a union as their first goal. If they were to change this program or seek to defeat us with unreasonable delays, our plan would probably need some revision. They have promised the Church that such a plan of union with the UPUSA Church would be presented to the 1973 General Assembly. (sic) We will accept the good faith of those who have promised until they have proven otherwise.
4. Our plan assumes that such a plan of union with the UPUSA Church will contain an acceptable provision permitting those churches who do not want to enter the union to elect not to participate in such union and to continue as a Presbyterian Church. (sic) This is the so called "escape" clause. The draft of such a plan of union now in the Church's hands for study contains such a provision for those churches who elect not to participate in the union. With certain minor alterations we believe such provision is acceptable. Both Dr. J. Randolph Taylor and Dr. Robert Lamar, the Co-Chairman of the committee for drafting the plan, have publicly and privately committed themselves to the preservation of an equitable escape clause. We 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. As you know, the Moderator has appointed me to this drafting committee in accordance with the instructions of the last General Assembly to appoint one member who is "unhappy" with the plan. I have not yet met with the committee; but I will accept the good faith of those who have promised an acceptable escape clause in the plan of union until they have proven otherwise. We fully realize that any plan of union must be approved by the General Assembly. If the General Assembly fails to approve a plan of union with an acceptable escape clause, then our plan would probably have to be revised.

These are some of the reasons that we have suggested that this is "a" plan for the continuation of a Presbyterian Church loyal to Scripture and the Reformed Faith. We are not suggesting it as the final plan for we recognize the possible necessity for revision.

What then is this plan? It is really very simple. This plan is:

1. To support a plan of union with the UPCUSA church that contains an acceptable clause that permits local congregations and ministers to elect not to enter the union.
2. To exercise this election not to enter the union and continue our own Presbyterian Church.

Yes, we suggest support for such a plan of union as the most effective constitutional method of peaceful realignment. The covenants of agreement of the draft of such a plan of union contains a conscience clause. This clause advises that "a person might properly support the Plan of Union while conscientiously objecting to some particular provision thereof". This clause needs some refinement. But there is hope that an acceptable clause will b e drafted which will permit a person, in good conscience, to vote for the plan either as a vehicle for union with the UPUSA or as a method of continuing our own Presbyterian Church. (sic)

We believe that our plan, which envisions the preservation of a continuing church through the exercise of this election not to enter the union, is a good plan for several reasons, to-wit:

1. It will bring into the continuing body a broader base with a maximum number of churches because it forces a decision on a clear cut issue. UPCUSA Union is a clear doctrinal issue. Each congregation will have to decide whether or not it will go into the union or elect not to enter.
2. It provides full protection for any minister who elects not to enter. Such a minister electing not to enter shall be on exactly the same basis as the minister electing to enter the union as to their minister's annuity. Any other method by which a church withdraws leaves the faithful minister "high and dry" still a member of his presbytery.
3. It is a guaranteed constitutional method for a local church to elect not to enter the union and still keep its local church property. Many Presbyterians erroneously believe that the decision in the Savannah Churches case guarantees that a Presbyterian congregation may withdraw from the PCUS and take its property with it. This is not true. This case gives us 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 change the present position of their State Supreme Courts 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 which is a long way from a legal guarantee. This plan of union would insure the fact that a local church could elect not to enter, and keep its local property.
4. It has the psychological advantage of all of us of like mind moving together - at the same time. Other methods tend to cause individual fragmentation. Under this plan we continue in a group as a Presbyterian Church.
5. It removes any taint of schism. Our opposition has launched a propaganda campaign to picture us as the divisive separationists. Unfortunately some of our dear friends and fellow warriors have contributed to this propaganda image. We know that it is the radical ecumenists who have forced this division; and we know that it is unfair to so label those who merely wish to continue to uphold the doctrine and polity all have vowed to believe and accept. This plan would eliminate this false issue.
6. It provides for the constitutional possibility of a national church. I know some of the brethren are still suspect of our northern brothers. But there are many churches in other areas of the United States that would be perfectly compatible with us in doctrine and polity. Presbyterianism in the United States has been divided by geography. Here is a possibility to divide Presbyterianism by theology. We think that a national Presbyterian Church loyal to Scripture and the Reformed Faith is desperately needed in our time. This plan provides such an opportunity.

These are just some of the reasons that recommended this particular plan to the thinking of some of us.

Of course there are many preparatory steps in the plan - all looking toward the continuing of our Presbyterian Church through our electing not to enter the Union with the UPCUSA. Your local congregation will need preparation for it is at the local level that each decision will be made. Your first responsibility would then be to be sure that the members of your local church are fully informed as to the issues so that they may make an intelligent decision. We recognize that this is going to cause great trauma in some local churches as the membership will be divided on these issues and only one group can prevail. But we did not cause this situation. As noted, it has been forced upon us by the determination of the radical ecumenists to force their programs upon the church.

We suggest in this plan the formation of a PCUS Fellowship of Churches. This will be a loose-knit association which is constitutionally permissible. Such a fellowship would obviously adopt a statement of belief and policy in order to establish a common ground for such association. But it would be just another voluntary association to which churches could belong, similar in structure to such organizations as Presbyterian Outlook, The Presbyterian Journal, Concerned Presbyterians, Fellowship of the Concern, the Covenant Fellowship of Presbyterians, and the Presbyterian Churchmen United. Any church could withdraw from the Fellowship at any time. There is no constitutional barrier prohibiting any church from being associated in such a fellowship. Each church would still be a full and complete member of its Presbytery and governed thereby. In such a fellowship we can meet and make common preparation for the future. And if a plan doesn't work, we can revise and devise another plan in the fellowship. It provides a unifying body to which all like-minded ministers and churches can rally for a home. Many other preparations and plans will have to be made but this is the basic structure.

This is the general outline of a plan for the continuation of a Presbyterian Church loyal to Scripture and the Reformed Faith. We believe this plan meets the four requirements of Christian Statesmenship, to-wit:

1. We move only as God's Holy Spirit moves us.
2. We move together.
3. We move with honor.
4. We move after due preparation.

We earnestly solicit your comments, criticisms, suggestions and recommendation toward the best plan for ths continuation of the historic witness of true Presbyterianism in America. (sic)

The Forming of the PCA: Part 7

Read Part 1.
Read Part 2.
Read Part 3.
Read Part 4.
Read Part 5.
Read Part 6.

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 7 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.

February 15-16, 1973

By W. Jack Williamson, 
A Member of 32-Member Committee for Drafting Plan of Union

Report to Steering Committee for Continuing Presbyterian Church

At its meeting in Dallas February 8-10, the Committee on Presbyterian Union postponed indefinitely the vote on any plan of union between the PCUS and the UPCUSA. It decided to abandon the present draft of such a plan and begin work on an entirely new plan. This will take time; so the Committee voted to report to the 1973 General Assemblies of the respective churches as follows:

1. The Committee is proceeding with the rewriting of a revised plan which takes into account the present moods and changes which have taken place within the Church since our original mandate which reflects in the serious study and responses made to the original draft of the Plan of Union and which reflect the need for new statements on the mission, form, and structure of a new church.
2. The Committee proposes to present such a revised plan for union to the General Assemblies at their joint meeting in Louisville in 1974 for study by the Church.
3. The Committee requests that it be continued for such a new and additional study.

Why?  Now that's a good question. At least part of the answer is found in the reason given at the Committee's meeting in Charlotte last June by Wallace Alston, Chairman of the Sub-Committee on Time Table. Then in discussing the reason for a delay to at least 1975, he frankly and candidly said that such a delay was dictated by "the ecclesiastical reality in the southern church." Men, like him, who sincerely desire the union, think that the plan cannot be passed at this time by 3/4ths of the Presbyteries in the PCUS. They point out that many of the strong proponents of union throughout the years now seem to oppose this plan. This is confirmed by a January 23, 1973 letter to the committee by Dr. Ben L. Rose which letter states: "I am coming more and more to feel that I cannot vote for any plan of union which allows churches to withdraw before the union is consumated." (sic) Then there is the announced opposition to union by the broad middle of the road group represented by CFOP. This opposition is seen as strong enough to get more than the required 1/4th of the Presbyteries to defeat union now. Thus for those who favor union, they seek a more desirable time and climate. They fully realize that such a delay will cause some withdrawals. They propose to watch such withdrawal and then reevaluate their political possibilities. In the meantime there will be increased efforts toward more union Presbyteries, toward restructuring of some Presbytery lines where advantageous, and toward an intensification of functional unity and organizational cooperation at the various administrative levels.

Another part of the answer for delay is in the sincere belief by many of the committee members that they have been given the responsibility of drafting a plan for a "NEW" church. One member stated that the present draft just put together "two old wineskins", was a "patching together of two old constitutions", and was not really "anything NEW". The argument voiced by many of the committee members was the present draft should be thus abandoned; and an attempt made to draft a plan for a truly "NEW CHURCH". It is this that the committee is asking the General Assemblies to give it time to do. You will note that the committee does not propose to have a draft of this new plan ready until the 1974 General Assemblies. Then it will be presented "for sutdy only". An effort was made to delete this phrase from the committee's request so that such a plan, if ready, could be presented in 1974 for vote; but this amendment to delete was defeated. Thus the committee has a completely indefinite time table as to when it will present the final draft to the Assemblies for vote.

Another complicating factor is the time table of the Confessional Committee. Dr. James Wharton, a member of the Confessional Committee, reported to our committee in Dallas. He said that the Confessional Committee had so much work to do on responses and revision that another draft of the new confession would not be presented until the 1974 General Assembly. Thus, assuming a one year study period, the earliest vote on the new confession would come in 1975. This would be about the same year that the earliest vote could come on the revised plan for union. There is general consensus that the confessional revision and the union plan should not be before the church at the same time. Thus if the union vote is postponed until after the confessional issue is decided, the earliest time for a vote on the union plan would be in the years 1977-1978. 

Hence, it appears to me that there will be no early vote on a plan of union. It has been indefinitely postponed.

Prior to the vote on this motion to postpone indefinitely any vote on a plan of union, I made it clear to the committee that, in my opinion, the people, who hold to the position that I represent on the committee, would react to such a postponement as an act of refusal to hear and to heed their concerns. Yet the committee voted to postpone with only two dissenting votes.

Thereupon United Presbyterian Stated Clerk William P. Thompson moved that the Committee ask its General Assemblies to dissolve and dismiss it until a more propitious time. He stated that in his judgment the committee was not being fair to its assemblies by spending all the time and money in a "fruitless and futile" effort. This motion was defeated.

Mr. Thompson and other members of the committee from the UPCUSA privately contacted me to apologize for the way the committee had dealt with the position and concerns I represented. They expressed their opinion that the committee had not negotiated in good faith with us.

Later Mr. Thompson made a public statement to the committee in an open meeting with the press present. He reviewed in great detail the history of the inclusion of an "escape" clause in the plan. He said that he did not favor such an "escape" clause because it conflicted with the present polity of the UPCUSA. He said that he initially agreed to its inclusion because of the insistence of the PCUS members that an "escape" clause was absolutely necessary to get the plan passed in the PCUS. It was policy not polity that prompted his decision to agree to the "escape" clause. He recalled the committee meeting in Alexandria, Va., in 1970 when conservative PCUS leaders were heard. The committee agreed to such an "escape" clause and wrote such into the draft of the plan. This plan with such an "escape" clause was approved by the committee, printed and delivered to the churches for study. A sub-committee on responses, of which I was a member, met for four full days and negotiated a number of compromised changes in the "escape" clause. Now at this meeting in Dallas, the Committee began to seriously debate the advisability of any "escape" clause and finally decided to abandon the present plan and write a new plan. Mr. Thompson then stated that he felt that in dealing with the conservatives the committee had been "dishonest". He further stated that he felt that the committee had "betrayed the brethren who trusted your integrity".

Mr. Thompson then told the committee that the reason for his agreeing to an "escape" clause now having been removed by the present position of the PCUS members, he would hereafter oppose any form of "escape" clause in any subsequent draft of a plan for union. It was the refusal of the committee to give a frank and candid answer to us on the "escape" clause that disappointed me. It seemed to me that after 3 1/2 years during which the hope and promise of such a clause was held out to us, we were entitled to a definitive commitment. It appeared to me that we were being "toyed with" like children. And instead of continuing the prior course of the committee and coming up with a final draft of such an "escape" clause, the committee ignored all the work done in the refining and redrafting process and decided to work on a new plan. This, in my judgment, was a failure to face and decide an issue on which we were entitled to an answer. Let me add that some individual members of the committee assure me later that they still favored an "escape" clause; and the committee did not decide in Dallas to keep or leave our the "escape" clause. It just took no action and delayed the entire process indefinitely.

What conclusions do I draw as to the status of the union process?

1. A vote on union has been postponed indefinitely. It is not likely to come within the next five years.
2. The time of the vote on union will be determined largely by the ecclesiastical political climate in the PCUS. The movement of conservative churches will be watched carefully. Resturcturing of Presbyteries will continue to be used by some to change voting balances. A major effort will be made to form all union Presbyteries possible. Organizational and functional unity of the two churches will be pushed and promoted at the administrative levels. In other words we will see much more "de facto" union before we see "dejure" union.
3. If a vote on union comes in this decade, I believe the plan will contain some form of "escape" clause. It is most likely to be a unilateral clause applicable only to PCUS and to also require approval at the Presbytery level.

As you can see, the union process is now in a state of major flux. It could be abandoned by the UPCUSA. It could now embark upon a long process of developing plans for an entirely "New Church". It will require strong leadership to give the process stability and direction.