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.