The Forming of the PCA: Part 2

Read Part 1.

There are many questions circulating out there by some elders of the PCA concerning the future of our denomination.  Since this is a Pastoral blog, I believe it a good thing to look back at some of the writings of the fathers of our denomination as they were nearing the end of the PCUS and considering themselves what was to become of their own denomination, which in the end led to the formation of the PCA.  I believe we can learn from them, and so the following is Part 2 of this little series looking back to 'the fathers of the PCA.'  Please take time to read the entirety though it is long for a blog.  Trust me this is crucial.

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

August 1969 Address on Presbyterian Journal Day

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"the just shall live by faith"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Forming of the PCA: Part 1

There are many questions circulating out there by some elders of the PCA concerning the future of our denomination.  Since this is a Pastoral blog, I believe it a good thing to look back at some of the writings of the fathers of our denomination as they were nearing the end of the PCUS and considering themselves what was to become of their own denomination, which in the end led to the formation of the PCA.  I believe we can learn from them, and so the following is Part 1 of this little series looking back to 'the fathers of the PCA.'  Please take time to read the entirety though it is long for a blog.  Trust me this is crucial. 

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

August 1967 Address on Presbyterian Journal Day

By W. Jack Williamson

Fathers and Brethren - it is with no small degree of trembling and trepidation that I, as a novice, address such a group of distinguished divines whose wisdom, knowledge, experience and spiritual acumen so engulfs and eclipses mine. But perhaps, in my naivety, you may find a fresh breeze of hope, even in my obvious over-simplifications, and a genuine thrill "enrapport" of The Spirit - as the fellowship of kindred minds is like to that above. But unabashed and unashamed do I speak as a disciple of my Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ whom I now publicly affirm to be The Son of the Living God, who came upon this planet to give his life a ransom for many, in which category, by His Grace, I am privileged to be included, not because of what I am but in spite of what I am - chief among sinners and faltering among his followers.

I am a Concerned Presbyterian because I am a Christian. And I discern trends in the Presbyterian Church of the United States which I believe are serious departures from the basic principles and teachings of the Christian faith.

First. 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. There seems to be a designed and deliberate effort in our church to change the attitude of the average church member toward the fundamental message and mission of the church. Instead of individualized Christianity we have institutionalized religion. The basic doctrine of regeneration is being replaced by a spurious doctrine of reformation. This is my main objection to the National Council of Churches. Its primary thrust seems to be in the creation of a super-church which becomes directly involved in economic, political and social issues in order to reform the world, forgetting the basic necessity for regeneration - such is the involvement of the National Council of Churches in Mississippi Delta project last year, its continuing political lobby in Washington that makes profession to speak for Protestants in this nation on legislation, foreign policy, etc., and its theory of evangelism as expressed in a Huntington, W. Va. Presbyterian pulpit by a member of the Department of Evangelism of the National Council of Churches in these heretical words:

"God has already won a mighty redemption, not only for us but for the entire world...The redemption of the world is not dependent upon the souls we win to Jesus Christ...God does not deal with each men as an isolated individual. There cannot be individual salvation...Salvation has more to do with the whole society than with the individual souls...It is for these reasons that contemporary evangelism is moving away from winning souls one by one to the evangelization of the structures of society." (sic)

This theory, philosophy or sociology seems to me to place primary emphasis upon service rather than salvation - i.e. that the church as a corporate body, through its official leadership as ministers, officers, boards, agencies and committees should become directly involved in community service as its consuming goal, and spend its principal energy directly promoting such things as better housing, better education, better recreation, better working conditions, etc. There is a grave danger that such promotion demotes the church from its status of a divine institution "in the world but not of the world" to just another noble and worthwhile service club. The degree to which this philosophy has permeated our society was clearly illustrated to me the other day in my own civic club. We have 65 members. This was the day for passing out perfect attendance pins. We had one member who had perfect attendance for 20 years. Another member had perfect attendance for 19 years. Several members who had perfect attendance for over 15 years. And over a third of the membership had perfect attendance for more than 5 years. As these pins were being passed out I heard one of the members jokingly remark, "Don't tell the preacher about this". What a classic truth in that jest. I don't believe there is a church in our town that has the fidelity of membership as does this civic club. Members will drive miles to make up a meeting. On vacation they will look up a place to make a meeting - not so for the church. There is a great danger that the church becoming just another eleemosynary agency with a tremendous potential for good community service but with only an incidental relationship to the salvation of souls through faith in Jesus Christ. It almost seems archaic to contend that the church's primary mission is to preach the gospel of Jesus Christ, that those who are chosen may be called by faith to Jesus and born again - this time, spiritually; and after this new birth, then to go out into the world as His disciples, to serve, to do good and to reform its errors in His Name. The church is mission: but this is her mission: and we must recall her to it.

SECONDLY, another alarming tendency in our church is the abrogation of the position that truth is an absolute which the church seeks to express in its basic doctrines to the popular position that truth is relative to each age and to each human conscience. Basic doctrines of our faith and their objects are no longer absolute verities; but we are told "the gospel must be made relevant to our times". Emotionally the whole age is in petulant revolt against order and truth - Illustration: the new morality. Such revolt ultimately means a revolt against God. It springs from the hatred of all discipline which is the last corruption of human nature. Intellectually we live in a defeated age. The age has lost its bearings. The cement of faith has crumbled. We have forgotten our creeds and flounder in a theological chaos. The climate of our day is one of intellectual pride with the insistence that faith is relative and that nothing is absolute. Neat slogans typify this trend - "We preach Christ: not a creed" "Let us propagate the gospel, not argue about it" - But my answer is that "if the trumpet give an uncertain sound who shall prepare himself for the battle". Let us sound forth the truth but let us be sure that that which we sound is the truth. Almighty God has become "Our ultimate ground for being". The racial crisis, not sin, has made the gospel relevant to our times. In our national as in our church life we Christians have failed to raise a standard to which the wise and just can repair leaving the rest in the hands of Almighty God. But instead each man has his own standard of the truth as it seems to him and this becomes a truth for him and others acting "responsibly in love" must tolerate his position as his truth. Hence emotionally, intellectually and spiritually we have utter chaos; and some men are trying to restore some order by simply getting everybody together regardless of their beliefs - the great ecumenical movement, it is called. It is not that the doctrinal differences have been solved, but rather that they have been declared to be irrelevant. I believe in an ecumenical Church founded upon common doctrinal beliefs as a basis for "a common faith" and a "common witness". The irreducible minimum of such belief must at least involve common basic precepts of God and man, the Bible, Christ, Salvation, and The Church. But the movement today would sacrifice all doctrine for the sake of unity - such as the Blake-Pike Plan. This doctrinal disparagity was my objection to union with the U.P.U.S.A. Church; and the New Modern Confession of 1967 which she is now considering and probably will adopt, for me, verifies this vast doctrinal abyss between us and them. This tendency was crystallized in my experience when as a Commissioner to our 1960 General Assembly in Jacksonville, Florida, and as a member of the Committee on Judicial Business I heard one of the public leaders of our church, a professor in one of our seminaries, and later a moderator of our General Assembly, argue in committee, for permission for an ordained Presbyterian minister in West Virginia to be ordained at the same time as a deacon in the Episcopal Church so that he could hold joint services for a small group of Presbyterians and Episcopalians, at the same time, in the same church, and serve communion one side of the church for the Presbyterians and on the other side of the church to the Episcopalians. Here seemed to me to be an irreconcilable conflict between the Episcopal doctrine of apostolic succession and our doctrine of the priesthood of all believers. The existence of this conflict was admitted; but the argument was made that more important than the doctrinal sacrifice was the opportunity of the two great churches to make this first move toward ecumenical unity. I cannot yet see how "two can walk together lest they be agreed". God is timeless. Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today and forever. The gospel is timeless and endless in its revelance. (sic) Thus I suggest that we need to reassert, reaffirm and redeclare our doctrinal absolutes as infallible truths, plant our feet firmly on the verities that are permanent and enduring, and treat any opposition thereto as the heresy it is.

THIRDLY, although you may have other matters which concern you more, I am concerned by a tendency of our church to forget, neglect and discard the great reformed doctrine of the "priesthood of believers" particularly as it relates to church government, and to substitute government by an authoritative ecclesiastical hierarchy. Out of the reformers basic conception of the nature and mission of the church and of Jesus Christ as its King and Head, on whose shoulders its government is, came the great doctrine of the "priesthood of believers" which gave a new dignity to the individual and the individual soul. Logically following was the genius of the Presbyterian system of church government with power and authority flowing from each individual member (a priest) through their representatives (Ruling Elders), who had parity or equality with clerical members (Teaching Elders) to a series of church courts. The power flowed from the bottom up, not from the top down. The check against domination by clerical authority, which the early reformers so much feared from dear experience, was the system of parity between the teaching and ruling elders. This fine balance has been lost. The teaching elder and the officialdom of our Boards and Agencies have gradually taken over the government of our church. I don't believe any impartial observer could successfully argue that our church government has not been in recent years largely dominated by Teaching Elders and full time Servants of the Church - either by design of the clergy or the default of the laity. Evidence of this tendency is the deplorable but ever widening gap and schism between the clergy and the laity. Thus the voice of the people in the pew has not been heard in our church courts through their elected representatives, the Ruling Elders. To preserve this new power groups have been formed among the ecclesiastical hierarchy such as the Fellowship of St. James and the Fellowship of the Concerned. False notions are being promoted to protect this power, such as the idea that all General Assembly pronouncements and actions are the law of the church and must be obeyed and accepted without question as they are without error. Unconstitutional questions are being asked of candidates for admission to Presbytery, such as "Will you use church literature? Will you support the entire program of the church? etc." These are not proper constitutional queries. A devastating system of rotation of church officers is being widely urged and is being used in many places to rotate from our official groups those who disagree with clerical authority and retire them from official service. Those who disagree with the ecclesiastical officialdom have little or no opportunity in church courts, literature, or publications for the expression of their views and opinions. In my opinion the principal reason for this tendency has been the laity has been lulled by the "Laodician Lullaby" of the world being too much with us late and soon into neither being too hot or too cold just lukewarm for Christ and his Church. We need a great spiritual awakening in the pew - a pouring out of the Holy Ghost - which will revive the true priesthood of believers who will govern the church through an intelligent, informed and concerned laity operating on parity with the clergy under the genius of our system and our constitution.

But Fathers and Brethren, these trends are merely symptoms of the malaise - the feeling of uneasiness and discomfort in the church. You can never cure the disease by merely fighting the symptoms. You must treat the ultimate cause to effect a permanent cure. The National Council of Churches issues, the ecumenical issue, the usurpation of authority by ecclesiastical hierarchy issue, the racial issue, the communism in the churches issue, the new morality issue, are all mere symptoms of our real spiritual disease. The disease of sin. My personal diagnosis is that our sin is to place man above God. The creature would usurp the place of the Creator and become equal with him. A damnable intellectual pride places the mind of man superior to that of God. Nowhere is this more evident nor more clearly illustrated than in our attitude toward the inspiration and authority of the Bible. Man then becomes God's counsellor. (sic) The Bible is no longer our only infallable rule of faith and practice - but it contains error as we hear often in Presbytery examinations. (sic) A deliberate rationalization, which borders on intellectual dishonesty and is the product of this intellectual pride, pervades many Presbytery examinations of young ministers today on their doctrine of Scripture. It permits them to find a new orientation of authority in what they call "The Living Christ" and a developing "Christology". The Bible becomes the "normative witness" of revelation rather than the inspired Word of God, and its words are said to be "words of men" and thus historically conditioned. This theological device by-passes the Holy Scriptures as inspired and authorative while it utilizes selective words and phrases of Scripture in a new frame of reference. (sic) Since "God in Love" everyone's opinion must be accepted "in love" and tolerated as truth to him. Thus a wide tendency toward universalism has arisen as the Scriptural doctrines of "hell" and "final judgment" are being replaced by a nebulous idea that "God is Love" and therefore he will not ultimately permit any of his creatures to perish or regulate them to eternal torment even though the Scriptures clearly so declare. The real authority is not the Scriptures but in the final analysis can only be "the Christian Consciousness" of the selectors which is synonymous with human consensus. It has been my observation that wherever and whenever the inspiration and authority of the Word Inscripturated is attacked the person and work of the Word Incarnated is demeaned. The work of and for Jesus Christ is equated with all the other noble causes of the church in society. The zeal for the gospel of Jesus Christ is lost and the temper of the times dictates the religious cause for the day - just choose on of these symptoms. The Protestant Reformation set the "Sola Scriptura" as its ultimate authority and our contemporary faithlessness to this authority and substitution of our own spurious authorities is resulting in "the Protestant Deformation". I suggest that we will be held eternally  accountable for permitting men to feed the flocks in our church with their own progressive revelations as equal or additional to God's complete, final and perfect revelation of himself in the Word Incarnate and The Word Inscripturate. But back to these symptoms of which we spoke. We must and we should treat the symptoms of our spiritual disease. As the physician gives aspirin to assuage the fever, we must battle these contemporary issues which lead to error in our church. But our primary emphasis should be to treat the cause; and we should begin by demanding that the church acknowledge, teach and practice that the Bible is our only infallible Rule of Faith and Practice.

But what shall we use to treat the disease. Shall we not, just as the surgeon, cut out the damaged area and hope we have eliminated the cause. But what if it has reached the Church's blood stream? In the analogy of the battle, should we not gird our loins as Christian Soldiers and march out to war? Yes! Yes! Yes! Let us cut out the cancers. Let us go out to do battle. Let us not lackadaisically permit our spiritual cancer to kill us nor let us not think we can retire from the battle as the monks of old and ultimately escape its consequences. Let us get at these symptoms with fervor and vigor to allay the malaise - even David had to find and use the sling and the stones to slay Goliath. But to do so alone would be negativism. Our primary energy should be constructive and should not be spent on merely assuaging the symptoms. Here is a grave danger. Our primary emphasis should be on constructively promoting an ultimate cure for the disease. This cure is the Lord Jesus Christ living in every heart - making it new, pure, clean, acceptable unto God. We have too much "religion" and too little "Christianity" in our church. Sincerity of purpose is insufficient as the Apostle Paul graphically illustrated in his life. In his great autobiographical defense of his faith before King Agrippa, Paul pointed out that previous to his encounter with the Living Christ on the road to Damascus, he was sincerely and deeply religious but so certainly wrong. We need to individually reexamine our relations to Jesus Christ and there we must begin. We need then to use the means and the methods he prescribed for the cure. First we must know that our real enemy is not the issues that seem so pressingly to beset us, nor is he the people who would seemingly undermine the faith of our fathers; but our enemy is Satan - "for we wrestle not against flesh and blood but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places": Therefore we must be "strong in the Lord and in the power of His might."

In other words our enemy is from the spiritual world and our real battle is a spiritual battle and thus our methods and weapons should be spiritual. We should "put on the whole armour of God that we may be able to stand against he wiles of the devil - that we may be able to withstand in the evil day and having done all to stand."

We must stand, therefore, "having our loins girted about with truth, having on the breastplate of righteousness; our feet must be shod wit the preparation of the gospel of peace; above all we must take the shield of faith whereby we shall be able to withstand the fiery darts of the wicked; we must put on the helmet of salvation and take in our hands the sword of the Spirit, which is the Word of God. We must pray always with supplication in the Spirit.

As disciples of Christ, we must begin on our knees in an attitude of humility - as Saint Augustine, we must answer when asked to name the three greatest Christian virtues, "Humility, Humility, and Humility."

Recognizing this necessary attitude, Concerned Presbyterians, Inc. at its Executive Board Meeting in Atlanta on July 16, 1965, adopted as its seal this statement and pledge:

"Every participating member of Concerned Presbyterians shall consider it his first responsibility as a member to encourage and support organized prayer in his own congregation."

In prayer, the believer, as a priest, has a pipeline directly to the fountainhead of truth, to the Commander-in-chief, where he is assured of an audience by the constant intercessions of his Great High Priest and where he is confident of an answer for "the effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much."

Going forth into the battle, we should not permit these symptomatic errors in the church to go unnoticed, unaccosted, or uncorrected; but 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 whereby Christians rededicate their hearts and lives to Jesus Christ, honoring and worshipping and serving him as the Head of the Church.

Let us not succumb to the temptations to use the means and methods of our enemy: but let us in faith use the means and methods God in Christ has revealed as the Holy Spirit interprets them to us through the Holy Scriptures. And let us not despair for Jesus said "In this world ye shall have tribulation; but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world." And in spite of our tribulation, if we are his true instruments, so, too, we shall overcome.

Taxes and Death (of the PCA)

(Kevin) Benjamin Franklin once observed that the only sure things in life are death and taxes. He was right. It is interesting how the latter can sometimes lead to the former. In the case of British rule over the colonies, taxes were the spark that ignited the American Revolution. The colonists saw taxation as coercive and unjust.

It could be that the crafters of the new PCA Funding Model (You can read the actual model here and a summary of it by the Stated Clerk here), forgetting the lessons of history, may be doomed to repeat it…with similar, if ecclesiastical, results. In essence, the plan does away with Registration fees for General Assembly by replacing them with an assessment levied against churches and Teaching Elders (aka, a tax) that will fund the Administrative Committee from now on.

This New Levy is a Tax

We are being told that we are paying this money anyhow to attend and vote at General Assembly. Why all the fuss? Two reasons:

The proposed tax is mandatory: Whereas current funding of the AC is voluntary, the new tax must be paid in order to participate in the General Assembly. In fact, it must be paid, even if you do NOT go to General Assembly.

The tax is cumulative. I was providentially hindered from going to General Assembly this year so I did not pay the $400 fee. Under the old plan, if I decided to go next year, I would pay my registration fee of $400 and go. Under the new plan, my fee would drop to $100, but with some differences. Having not gone this year, I would not have paid the $100. But next year I would receive a bill (They will be billing us!) for $200. Last year’s fee is considered delinquent and must be paid as well in order to vote.

This New Tax is Coercive

Closely related is the idea of coercion. Whereas support of the AC has always been voluntary in the past, now it would be mandatory. Voting at GA becomes both the carrot and the stick. No pay, no play.

Some have argued that we already pay to vote at General Assembly and this is true. But such payment is voluntary. If I do not go, I do not pay. The proposed plan makes failure to pay punishable. If you are “delinquent” (THERE is a coercive word!) two years in a row, the AC will report offending ministers and courts to the General Assembly for further action.

This New Tax Sins, Yes Sins, against the Members of the PCA

In 1973, the newly founded PCA entered into a solemn covenant not to coerce property or money from its churches. The agreement reads:

The provisions of this BCO 25 are to be construed as a solemn covenant whereby the Church as a whole promises never to attempt to secure possession of the property of any congregation against its will, whether or not such congregation remains within or chooses to withdraw from this body. All officers and courts of the Church are hereby prohibited from making any such attempt. (25-10)

“Property” is understood to refer to monies as well, which 25-8 bears out:

The superior courts of the Church may receive monies or properties from a local church only by free and voluntary action of the latter.

25-12 holds that:

The relationship is voluntary, based upon mutual love and confidence, and is in no sense to be maintained by the exercise of any force or coercion whatsoever.

Apparently Atlanta does not see the covenant as solemnly as it once did. Stated Clerk Taylor on the changes writes:

In our concern to insure that abuses experienced in our former denomination (taking money contributed to one General Assembly ministry and giving it to another) could not occur in the PCA, we established a system in 1973 whereby churches could have all privileges of membership and no financial responsibility at all. (Consequently half of PCA churches do not support any General Assembly ministry.) Uniquely, we made contribution to essential support services (AC) a separate funding request. The proposed plan establishes a minimal required level of financial support to the AC to be necessary for participation in decision making on the General Assembly level, but retains the right of churches to choose which other General Assembly ministries they wish to support.

So the response is, “Hmmmm. We need more money. Let’s set aside one of our foundational principles, casting it in terms of necessity, and ram it through as fast possible, before someone realizes the plan puts us back on the road to why the PCA developed in the first place."

Beware, Atlanta. There is a groundswell of opposition to this. Smaller, conservative churches see themselves being pushed out as the PCA will inexorably become a plutocracy. It will be the death of the PCA as we know it.

Hold Me Up...And I Shall Be Safe

James Smith offers us this little gem coming into a new week...

"Hold me up--and I shall be safe!" Psalm 119:117

We need God's constant presence, power and grace.

Except He upholds us--we shall certainly fall.

We would have fallen before this--if God had not kept us!

We would fall every day--unless we are upheld by an invisible arm!

This day Satan may lay some snare for us!

This day our evil hearts may deceive us!

This day the world may lay some unexpected bait for us!

And unless the Holy Spirit . . .
  opens our eyes,
  gives us fresh supplies of grace, or
  holds us back by an invisible power
--we shall utterly fall!

"Hold me up--and I shall be safe!"

Let this be our daily prayer! It will never be unsuitable!

PCA 38th General Assembly 2010: Day 4 (Strategic Plan Passes)

I won't take much time to pass on to you that the Strategic 'Plan' passed today.  Most of the afternoon until Midnight was spent going over the plan and voting on it.  Almost each vote was 60-40 in favor of each individual part of the plan.  Some small parts were voted against, but the main ones were the BCO changes that were proposed.  Those passed, which will now go to the Presbyteries for a needed 2/3 approval before they can then come back to the General Assembly for approval.  

This indeed was a sad day, especially on the BCO 14 changes that were voted on.  Such changes will lead us right back to where we were when the PCA first started; the General Assembly requiring the monies of the lower courts to be given to the higher.  Such things are contrary to BCO 25-8, 10, and 11, and also violate our liberty of conscience.  It truly is a tragedy, yet as I sit here at his late hour, I must remind myself as a Presbyterian I must submit to the decision of the court and work to overturn such a decision.  May the God who is faithful to His people, be faithful to this church, the Presbyterian Church in America.  His will be done.  May we also repent of our past and present sins of which we were exhorted to this evening. 

PCA 38th General Assembly 2010: Day 3 (Strategic Plan or Plot?)

Oh, great title right?  Before I get to that let me just say today was the day where all the Permanent Committees are to give their informational report.  And what they share is already written in our commissioner handbook.  So I used this time to go and visit the various exhibitors.  The only real quality work we did today is voting on BCO, RAO, and SJC Manual amendments, and really nothing major to speak of there.  These were more small matters to bring clarity and help out the Assembly and its committees.  

But the big news flowing out of the Strategic Plan dealings is quite a find.  I have been contemplating for well over a month now what was meant by a comment I heard.  I heard that one of the denominational leaders said that it doesn't really matter if we pass the Strategic Plan this year because we are in Phase 3.  I have wondered for awhile now what 'Phase 3' means.  It seems very much like a plot. This evening some friends and I were talking about the Strategic Plan over dinner and how we got to where we are today.  Their description to me was in three stages.  Amazing, right?  So I did some research.  A friend showed me a document that showed proof that there were three stages and we are in the third stage right now!  Yes, right now! The document, which is actually a PowerPoint presentation on paper that I have, is entitled, "Background and Summary of the 2010 PCA Strategic Plan".  

The first slide states,

Stage One

24 Leaders Elected by General Assembly (2000) 

-Identify Biblical and Theological Values and Priorities

-Identify Tools Needed for Further Planning

Approved by 2003 GA

The second slide,

Stage Two

Being Revived and Bring Reformation

-Original Leaders and ad interim committee
-Professional Survey: 900 PCA leaders, 66 presbyteries, interviews with other denominations
-90-page report
~Reiterated biblical priorities
~Proposals to make GA issue-focused and fruitful
~Cooperative Ministries Committee directed to do "long-range planting" (RAO 7-3.c)
Approved by 2006 GA

The third slide,

Stage Three

2007-10 Strategic "Plan"

(a "map" not a mandate; except BCO amendments)

-Cooperative Ministries Committee (cooridinators, chairmen, moderators)
-Additional Research and Discussion
~2-hour seminars at GAs (hundreds of commissioners and recordings)
~Text and video on AC Web site; byFaith articles pro and con
~Questions answered on AC Web site (not unaffiliated blogs)

The fourth slide,

Stage Three

2007-10 Strategic "Plan"

Approved Unamiously by Cooperative Ministries Committee (January 2010)
Approved Unanimously by Administrative Committee (April 2010)
Approved Unanimously by Committee on Constitutional Business (May 2010)
Attorneys King and Spalding Approval (Spring 2010)

So can you see three phases/stages?  The same man who made this Strategic "Plan" was the one who said that they were in "Phase Three" above AND was the same one who produced this PowerPoint presentation (the author...a prominent leader and President of a PCA academic institution).  Now I leave this up to you.  I am asking if, since the year 2000, is this a "plan" or a "plot"?"

PCA 38th General Assembly 2010: Day 2 (Boring day...for me)

Today, the two big items came before committees (deaconesses and strategic plan).  For deaconesses, the Overtures Committee went with Overture 7 from Evangel Presbytery.  After they amended it, it seemed like a good compromise for all.  There was going to be a minority report, but low numbers brought that to a halt.  So no minority report there.  The language that was changed seems to go in favor of defining what is already in BCO 9-7 and nothing major is being recommended to the Assembly.  As for the Strategic Plan (SP), the Administration Committee of Commissioners  (CoC) met again to discuss the SP at 1pm today.  They received amendments to the SP from the Administration Committee who met this morning.  However, by 5:30pm the only recommendation that had been voted on was the NW Georgia Presbytery Overture, which was passed 28-2.  However, it was passed amended not as an 'alternative' to the SP but as good information/wisdom.  The Administration CoC will meet tomorrow (Wednesday) at 8am to, hopefully, conclude its work before the main Assembly meetings begin at 10:30am.

So this was pretty boring for me today.  I had nothing really to do, no work.  Again, the conversation seems to be great and worthwhile.  I am happy about what the Overtures Committee did, I think we could go further but I'm happy.  We need to keep praying for the Admin. CoC in their work.  They plan on going through each recommendation of the SP line by line, which could take awhile to work out.  Usually, this CoC doesn't get this much work so may God give them wisdom to handle what is before them with diligence according to the Word.  

Harry Reeder was elected Moderator tonight by acclamation, being the only one nominated.  I believe he will serve as a great Moderator, especially with the amount of business we have this year.  Of what I have seen of him, he is to the point, not fooling around, which in my eyes serves as a good Moderator.  Hopefully, he will be fair to the rules and if so, I believe he will do a great job, moving things along smoothly and at a good pace.  

So just as the title, this post was boring.  If you want to read a little more on the GA so far, you can read Ken's post about it so far here (He served on Overtures Committee).  Wes White served on the Administration Committee of Commissioners and you can read what he says here.  Here is a little feast for your souls from James Smith:

"Christ, who loved us!" Romans 8:37

No condition can possibly be more dreary--than to feel that no one loves or cares for us!

There is something peculiarly sweet and pleasant--in being the object of another's love. Even the love of a poor child is sweet. But to be loved by one who is most wealthy, most exalted in station, and most honorable in character--must be peculiarly delightful!

How, then, should we rejoice; how happy should we be--who are loved by the Lord Jesus! Especially when we consider:
on the one hand:
  how despicable,
  how poor,
  how worthless, and
  how unlovely WE are!
And, on the other hand:
  how glorious,
  how wealthy,
  how worthy,
  how lovely JESUS is!

To be loved by Jesus--is to be preferred before the possession of a world!

Think of . . .
  the glory of His person,
  the vastness of His possessions,
  the number of His angelic attendants,
  the unlimited sovereignty which He exercises,
  and the excellent character He bears!

Also bear in mind--that He knew what loving us would cost Him--how He would be treated by us and by others--for our sakes!

Yet He fixed His love upon US!

He loved US--just because He would!

He passed by others more dignified in nature, more exalted in station--but He chose US!

He did not, could not, NEED us--for He was infinitely happy and glorious without us!

Yet He loved us!

He still loves us!

Amen!

PCA 38th General Assembly 2010: Day 1 (Patience and Old Friends)

Day one of General Assembly is really not the first day, I guess tomorrow is (Tuesday).  When the actual Assembly gathers in its opening session, which opens with a worship service and election of a Moderator.  I have heard at least one man who will be nominated and I assume based on who it is that he will be elected.  However, since it has not happened yet I won't divulge who that might be (*Cough he is a Pastor of a large church in Birmingham *Cough).  

So anyway, the Committee of Commissioners met today.  Basically what they do is check the Permanent Committees and Agencies to make sure they are doing things right and are recommending good things for General Assembly.  The two major items that were supposed to be reviewed today, both were put on hold until tomorrow; those of 'women deacons' for the Overtures Committee and the 'Strategic Plan' for the Administration Committee.  Yes, both of those Committee of Commissioners postponed their work on the two major parts of their work until tomorrow.  So today, no real news to speak of.  What does this teach us?  Patience.  

But what is so great about General Assembly?  Seeing old friends and meeting new ones.  In my case, typically the new ones are those who I have talked to online and then finally meet in person.  I met a great deal of people today, always good to see fellow elders and work with them.  This evening at dinner I was told some of the most amazing true stories that I have ever heard about the life of two churches in our denomination.  By amazing, I do not mean anything good, which is sad to say.  I just could not believe what was going on these two churches.  It was so sad and practically unbelievable.  I turned to another elder as we listened and asked, "Is this April 1st?"  Seriously, what the Pastor was saying was so crazy you would think that never could this happen in churches, and yet we all knew he was being serious and what he was saying was true.  Now I cannot give details for obvious reasons of the churches or the elders I ate with, but if you have time please pray for this man and these churches.  Pray for the mercy of God and His grace to fill the lives of the leaders of these churches and that they would be given true wisdom.  That they would all fear God and not men. 

If you would like to watch the Assembly live, a live feed will be available here.

The following are some Overtures Committee recommendations to the General Assembly:

• Overture 5
• Overture 11
• Overture 18

Introducing The 38th General Assembly Of The PCA

This is supposed to be a 'Pastoral Blog' and therefore it would be in our best interest to write pastorally about the PCA's General Assembly (GA) of which each author is a member of here at A Profitable Word.  How as Pastor's should we respond to actions taken at GA, what should be a heart's desire going in and coming out of GA, what is best for the Church, and how do we get there?  All these questions and more are what will be looked at in this post and in those posts to come next week during the time the Presbyterian Church in America holds its 38th General Assembly.  

This year, there are two 'big' issues that the denomination will be voting on or considering.  The first is the deaconess issue that we have been dealing with for a few years now.  It comes mostly through overtures this year submitted by presbyteries to change or amend the BCO.  Some for deaconesses some against.  You can read those overtures here.  These will go before the Overtures Committee on Monday and will probably be heard on the floor Thursday morning, although scheduled for Thursday afternoon.  

The second major issue is that of the proposed Strategic Plan.  You can find all the reading you could want on the Strategic Plan: Pros and Cons here and here.  I find this issue to be much more of importance as it will undoubtedly affect the future of the PCA greatly.  The implications are high and for both of these issues we need to be in prayer.  

So stayed tuned next week for updates from the PCA General Assembly and a Biblical response.  

Don't Get Caught Up In Earthly Law!

There are few places in Scripture that mention the need in law for two or three witnesses.  Deuteronomy 19:15 states, "A single witness shall not rise up against a man on account of any iniquity or any sin which he has committed; on the evidence of two or three witnesses a matter shall be confirmed."  This is part of that descriptive law for the courts required in Israel before Christ's death and resurrection.  We have a similar principle for the Church in Matthew 18:15-20.  Now I bring this up because very often we see on the news criminals who get away with things.  They go to court and the jury doesn't convict them.  They murder someone and they get 20 years in jail.  Doesn't seem like a very good punishment, does it?  In today's society, you don't even need two or three witnesses to convict a man.  But think of that need in the time of Israel.  If a man raped a woman or someone murdered someone, there had to be witnesses. Think of how many times a murderer is going to allow for witnesses to be around or in the other case, if someone is raped, there has to be a witness besides the victim.  Tell me how many times that happens.  Not very often.  It was hard in Israel to determine if someone is guilty of a crime.

I know you see people go free all the time when they shouldn't or at least when it seems like they shouldn't.  You become frustrated at our court system.  Think about Israel's.  You'd be frustrated, probably much more than that as well, if your daughter was raped and there was only one witness, your daughter.  The man would go free.  Don't get caught up  in earthly law!  Think of the second to last verse in all of Scripture, Revelation 22:20, "Come, Lord Jesus!" This is our prayer.  O that Christ would come and rescue us from this present evil age.  But think about the application of this prayer.  "Come, Lord Jesus!" is not only for our good to save us, but it also implies that judgment has come when He returns.  

Revelation 20:12, "And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Then another book was opened, which is the book of life. And the dead were judged by what was written in the books, according to what they had done."  They will be judged according to what they do.  Brethren, don't get caught up in this world and earthly law, the Lord will judge all mankind.  And those who are not in Christ will be condemned to eternal death.  Find comfort that even though our civil courts are imperfect, our church courts are imperfect, the court of the eternal God, Maker of heaven and earth, the eternal Judge is perfect.  

Come, Lord Jesus, Come!