How is the Gold Leaf Peeled Off

.

[Editor’s Note: Republished from the January, February, and March 1994 issue of The Presbyterian Advocate with the permission of and our thanks to the author, the Rev. Dr. Carl W. Bogue, TE, Presbyterian Church in America, Retired.]

———-

by Carl W. Bogue

.

TE (Dr.) Carl W. Bogue [was at the article’s publication in 1994] pastor of the Faith Presbyterian Church of Akron, Ohio.

.

In 1973 with the formation of the Presbyterian Church in America, Dr. Morton Smith published a significant book, How Is the Gold Become Dim. It was in many respects a founding document, commissioned by the Steering Committee for a Continuing Presbyterian Church and documenting the “decline of the PCUS as reflected in its assembly actions.” To many it demonstrated the need for separation in order to continue to be a truly Presbyterian Church. In no way is this article comparable to the research and quality of that publication. But with gratitude to Dr. Smith, and apologies if needed, I have had my variation of his title in mind for several years.

In recent years Presbyterians have become concerned again about the purity of the Church, not in regard to the old line denomination. but in regard to this separated body which declared its intention to be faithful to the Scriptures and the Reformed Faith. In the early 70’s, with the idealism of a young pastor in his first congregation, I quickly found it necessary to be contending for “the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints.” Women elders, abortion, sodomy, children taking communion, even a personal God was no longer an article of faith.

In 1975 when my congregation and I separated from the UPCUSA it was with a sense of liberation. We saw the banner proudly displayed by the PCA, and none of us imagined that it meant anything other than what it said: “True to the Scriptures, the Reformed Faith, and Obedient to the Great Commission of Jesus Christ.” Surely, this was my church home for life. In an ever broadening church this may still be the PCA banner, but reasonable conformity to it is no longer required. For many, the dream of what might have been seems now but a distant hope.

I will not attempt to document the declension in any systematic or comprehensive way. It would be a major research project to gather all the relevant data for such. If one just goes through the Minutes reading the protests and dissents, he will get a good flavor (and a bad taste) of what is at stake. I come with a more personal and selective account, but with hope that even this brief account might stir some to share in my alarm and disappointment.

.

WAS IT GOLD OR GOLD LEAF?

.

It was the summer of 1969 when I first began to seek a call to the pastorate. The denominational office in Columbus, Ohio, which handled such things, told me to select twenty churches from their vacant church list to whom they could send my ministerial data form. That seemed excessive, but they assured me that we would probably have to go through a second list at a minimum.

Having selected the 20 churches, an amazing thing happened. Most of the 20 churches did not even wait to correspond with me; they telephoned. They were very interested. I was amazed. It was not that there were not enough pastors; there were not enough conservative pastors. My data form showed no pastoral experience, but it did reveal quite clearly that I was a conservative and willing to say so. For this there was apparently great demand.

Though almost twenty-five years have passed, I can still remember much of my discussion with the pulpit committee from the church which did call me. When my view of inerrancy and certain other fundamentals was confirmed, they were excited. Did I believe that evangelism was important? Would I be involved in this protest or that protest movement? I was obviously not the run of the mill liberal of which they were so weary. But do you know what was perhaps the pivotal question? What about giving church money to the Angela Davis Defense Fund? Well, that was easy; I was clearly against it. My orthodoxy was now ratified.

I did not think about it so much at the time, but what was interesting were those things that did not come up for discussion: Reformed or Calvinistic distinctives, creedal commitment, how the Westminster Standards would function in my ministry. Many of these fine folks are still in our congregation now, and I think they would all agree that they had little sense of what a distinctly Presbyterian church would be. They were not trying to deceive anyone; they had never been taught. Question: was it Presbyterian gold, or was it broad civil, cultural, and religious conservatism with some Presbyterian gold leaf?

What I found in my first church, a broadly conservative church within a liberal denomination, I now believe was what was institutionalized via separation from the PCUS and the founding of the PCA in 1973. Not officially; the documents are clear enough. But in the minds and practice of the majority it was not the founding of Presbyterian gold, but a broad evangelical and cultural conservativism with some Presbyterian gold leaf. I believe if you could honestly poll the men who formed the PCA you would find that for most, the final straw was not a repudiation of the confessional integrity of the historic Southern Church, but PCUS support of Angela Davis, the guerrillas fighting in South Africa, and abortion.

We entered the PCA a year and a half later with great expectations because of the “official” position of the church. As early as my first General Assembly in 1975 I was troubled, but more than that I was puzzled, at how many with whom I talked were oblivious to what to me seemed to be inconsistencies. For example, I found that many were very comfortable with the use in their Sunday School programs of curriculums from David C. Cook, Gospel Light, or Scripture Press when I saw it as so liberating to have something like Great Commission Publications or the equivalent of that. And if someone wants to argue how many more of our churches are using Great Commission curriculum now, should such be the case, my response is not to retract this concern. My response is to ask the telling question: “Who changed?” Have the churches become more consistently Reformed, or has Great Commission Publications changed to get the needed market share?

Let me give an example. Early on, our session expressed concern over the appearance of alleged pictures of Jesus in some of the publications. We argued that this was not only idolatrous according to Scripture, but that it was contrary to our Westminster Standards. The reply was: “Sorry, it was a mistake, and we will not let it happen again.” Some years later, after a similar request, the response was: “We hear your concern, but you must realize that there are those in the PCA who do not see a problem, and so we will have a little bit of idolatry (my word) but limit it.” Even more recently, growing out of the proliferation of books at the General Assembly book tables with Jesus pictures everywhere, our session again communicated with the Christian Education Committee. This time the committee’s response seemed to be that they felt no responsibility to exercise control over what is sold; it is determined by market forces alone; we give the people what they want.

My point in the curriculum and publication area is that what we see now was present in the beginning, albeit hidden with a veneer of Confessional integrity (Reformed gold leaf). I suspect that every major battle now raging, every polarization, every threatened schism was there lying dormant in the beginning. In spite of the founding documents there was not solid Biblical unity. Those who wrote and organized the official documents for the PCA apparently intended the PCA to be what it professed to be, a continuation of the Old School (strict subscriptionist) heritage of the PCUS. But many, perhaps a majority even from the start, who voted for this position either thought it did not matter in practice or did not understand the implications. It was not until there were specific issues or judicial cases that the broad evangelicals felt threatened and the battle lines were drawn which in time would chip away at our confessional integrity. The Concerned Presbyterians’ Memorials of 1993 and 1994 bring the issue to a head. The outcome may very well show once and for all whether the gold leaf will go deeper and not be just something superficial, or whether the gold leaf will have peeled off.

.

OF LAWFUL VOWS

.

When I was in seminary, the conservative voice within the UPCUSA was muted at best. But what offended me most among the liberal professors and pastors related to integrity. Men who vowed before God to receive and be guided by the Westminster Confession of Faith openly trashed the Confession and its teaching. It is one thing to have a heterodox theology; It should, however, bother even a humanist to hypocritically vow to uphold what you intend to destroy.

The Word of God is surely clear: “When you make a vow to the Lord your God, you shall not delay to pay it….You       shall be careful to perform what goes out from your lips…what you have promised” (Deuteronomy 23:21, 23). Does it make any difference as far as the promise goes, whether the issue is inerrancy and the deity of Christ, or whether it is new revelation via charismatic gifts, the historicity of Genesis I, and the regulative principle of worship?

What we have seen over a period of time in the civil sphere is no less true in the sphere of the church. Without self-government, the best constitution in the world cannot prevail. In the same way the Supreme Court has rewritten the Constitution by virtue of its rulings, the General Assembly, the supreme court of the PCA, has rewritten the constitution of the PCA.

Ask a ministerial candidate being examined by presbytery what is required to amend the constitution of the PCA, and he will say, if adequately prepared, two-thirds of the presbyteries for the Book of Church Order and three-fourths of two General Assemblies plus three-fourths of the presbyteries for the Westminster Standards. But without self­-government, without honesty to our vows, that is not the case at all.

Our constitution is regularly being amended or changed by fifty-one percent of one General Assembly. I cannot reconstruct the specifics, but I remember well one such incident at one of the Grand Rapids assemblies. The issue may not seem that crucial to some, but the constitution was at stake. The issue was whether BCO 10-6 was obligatory. Who pays for the expenses to attend the church courts? It is well known that many delegates pay their own way, and many churches would be hard pressed to do what they are obliged to do. The unconstitutionality of not paying was pressed; the moderator made a ruling, and the vote on whether the moderator’s ruling was correct resulted in an assembly decision in direct conflict with BCO 10-6. Everyone knew what the constitution said, but by this simple majority the BCO was amended in practice. The issue has not come up again. But 10-6 is still on the books, and elders still take their vows.

There is another example of which I can speak more precisely, showing that unconstitutional actions are easy if it becomes clear the majority wants it so. Instead of government by law, we often face the tyranny of the fifty-one percent. This example concerns a period of time in which some of my friends changed my G.A. nametag so my last name became et al.

In October of 1982 I was one of several men who complained against our presbytery’s sustaining of an ordination exam and subsequent ordination of one we felt to be clearly out of accord with our Standards. The first and most prominent of five reasons for the complaint stated: “The candidate took exception to BCO 58-4 which restricts the invitation given at the Lord’s Supper to session-approved persons or professing Christians who are ‘communicants in good standing in any evangelical church.’ He believes it is illegitimate to include church membership as a requirement for one to participate in the Lord’s Supper” (Minutes, 1983, p. 139). Biblical and Confessional support was made (Cf. for example, WCF 25:2 and 3,27: 1, and 29: 1; WLC Q. 162 and 168; the Biblical proof texts for these references as well as Acts 2:41 and 47, Acts 6: 7, 1 Cor. 5:2, 2 Cor. 2:6-7, Hebrews 10:25 and Hebrews 13:17.).

My purpose is not to re-argue the case. But note how it progressed in the Assembly. In 1983 the complaint was sustained. Presbytery failed to comply; another complaint came, and the 1984 assembly again sustained the complaint. Presbytery again failed; another complaint came to the 1985 assembly. Found in order by both the Permanent Committee on Judicial Business as well as the Committee of Commissioners on Judicial Business, the moderator of the General Assembly nevertheless ruled that the complaint was out of order and was sustained. The Committee on Review and Control, however, made an exception to the presbytery minutes and questioned whether the past G.A. directives were followed. Presbytery continued to not act; a complaint was again sent up to the 1986 General Assembly, and the complaint was sustained with presbytery directed to comply.

The assembly was weary of the case, and so was I. After three years of contending that the constitution be followed, the opponents were unable to turn aside the facts of the case. Nevertheless, as we argued after the first year, if they can bring it back long enough, they will eventually win simply because many do not want to be bothered with it. The 1986 vote was close, and a motion to reconsider prevailed. On the second time the commission’s recommendation was defeated, and a new commission was set up to hear the case between assemblies.

This whole brief recounting of this case is to point up the following sequence of events. In response to a constitutional inquiry from a church in Illinois whether a session may approve an individual for participation in the Lord’s Table who is not a member in good standing of an evangelical church., the Committee on Judicial Business said “No.” However, on the floor of General Assembly, a substitute motion by a member of Ascension Presbytery prevailed which said: “This matter should be left to the spiritual discernment of the Session” (Minutes, 1986, p. 125). This took only a simple majority, but it effectively changed the Westminster Standards and the Book of Church Order for the PCA.

.

POLITICIZED COURTS

.

Intentionally or not, the case with regard to fencing the Lord’s Table, became more of a political issue than a constitutional issue. The simple majority change just mentioned was bad enough in and of itself. But it immediately became the “way out” for those who wanted a looser view of our standards without appearing to ignore them. The new commission to hear the case argued pragmatically: ”The protracted nature of this disagreement has had a detrimental effect upon the peace and growth of the church in the Presbytery.” That was totally false, but it surely sounded “pastoral.” What really hurt was the PCA’s ambivalence.

But they also argued the will of the assembly: “However, on the basis of the Fourteenth General Assembly’s decision allowing a broader interpretation of BCO 58-4, the ‘Session approval’ position is now a legitimate basis for Presbytery’s acceptance of Mr.       ‘s views” (Minutes. 1987, p. 135). The complaint was correct, but the most recent G.A. had given a way out. But not legally; not constitutionally. The 1987 General Assembly happily voted in favor of the commission’s not sustaining the complaint, but they could only do it on the basis of a constitutional change made by a simple majority and reading it into the case ex post facto. A formal Dissent entered into the record by TE Palmer Robertson is correct when he states:

In the report of the Judicial Commission to the Assembly, the principal and repeated reason given for the decision of the Commission was based on an ex post facto decision of the 14th General Assembly. As an appeals court, the Judicial Commission erred in allowing the June 1986, decision of the 14th General Assembly to be introduced into the case. when the Commission’s own record of the history of the case ended in March of 1986.

Only an activist court, not unlike the activity of our civil Supreme Court, can so blatantly rule against the clear requirements of our church constitution and legislate via court decisions. Unhappily, unconstitutional rulings are becoming normative. You need not revisit in great detail all the cases in the recent past to see this. A good starting point is to examine the Minutes from recent years, and using the index, seek out and read the various Dissents and Objections that are entered into the record. Ask yourself honestly whether these are written by sore losers or whether they are raising legitimate constitutional irregularities.

And the beat goes on; it is intensifying. You do not need to be a student of constitutional law to determine which is geographically closest (RAO 15-3) to the Presbytery of the Ascension: Alabama, Georgia and Florida, or Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Virginia and Tennessee. I think a sixth grade geography student could see that clearly. Has the SJC accepted appeals from those who did not submit to a trial at the presbytery? Yes. Has the SJC decided a case on issues not in the appeal, inventing their own “reasons,” because finding in favor of the appeal would give an interpretation to the constitution that they were unable to get by vote of the Assembly? I think so. Has a video or audio recording of a disputed meeting sent up as part of the Record of the Case been thrown out without just cause by the SJC? Yes. If a mechanical recording shows the filets not to be what are sent up as “official minutes,” would not justice require an honest evaluation of all the record? Can there be peace in the Church if those charged with hearing disputes will not comply with both the letter and the spirit of carefully thought out rules of operation? And even after all these concerns, is a conscientious person all but disenfranchised from voting on the final outcome, since all the Assembly sees is a sanitized rewrite of how the SJC sees the case?

.

DOCTRINE AND LIFE

.

Judicial activity, church politics and all that goes on behind the scenes does not take place in a vacuum. Almost none of the problems alluded to above would ever have occurred if there had been a unity of doctrinal beliefs rather than a broadening church. Power and authority are given to the Church to maintain its peace and purity. Such power may be properly utilized to enforce the outward obligations entered into by virtue of one’s ordination vows. Such power may also be used to change a church’s subordinate standards to conform more closely with the Word of God. But power may also be abused and used to condone doctrines and practice which go against Scripture and which deny due process. 

Where is the PCA twenty years after its formation? What is our bond of unity? Is that bond pure gold, or is it gold leaf? No one can dispute the polarity within the PCA. In 1993 a Memorial was sent up to the General Assembly expressing concern and calling upon the church “to be true to her declarations.” Seven specific areas of concern were set forth in summary fashion. When referred to the Bills and Overtures Committee, the response adopted and voted upon by the Assembly was essentially a non-answer. The Memorial was neither repudiated nor taken seriously. As one member of the committee expressed so well: “Our response is like taking our creeds off the shelf, dusting them, and placing them back on the shelf.” In 1994 another Memorial is being sent to the General Assembly, asking for even more specific action that would honor the official position taken by the PCA in its formation. At Concerned Presbyterian Day on March 25, 1994, some in this largely conservative gathering actually argued that asking the PCA to be true to its vows was “inflammatory.” No wonder many see little hope for change in the direction the church is going.

What are some of the doctrines, and why are they important? One of the most important battles that has raged almost from day one of the PCA concerns the sufficiency of Scripture as it is undermined by various views regarding “new revelation.” Both the 1993 and 1994 Memorials address this issue. For twenty years I have heard reference made to the “Pastoral Letter” of 1974 on the issue of Spiritual Gifts. The problem is that both charismatic sympathizers and anti­-charismatic parties appeal to the document. The problem is obvious. It was a document meant to conform to the Standards of the church, but without clearly repudiating the miraculous gifts. Instead of starting with Reformed and Presbyterian gold, a less than Reformed substance was covered with gold leaf with predictable results. 

In 1980 enough gold remained to correct a presbytery’s approval for ordination of a candidate who believed in the continuation of the miraculous gift of “tongues.” The connection between such gifts and revelation was clearly affirmed. This served an adequate precedent for some time, but in 1988 two similar cases came from two different presbyteries in which the General Assembly seemed to sustain two contrary decisions. At the very least the one case is now assumed to permit such miraculous “gifts” resulting in an erosion of our doctrine of the sufficiency of Scripture. This failure of Confessional integrity results in a double standard being practiced within the church. One presbytery accepts a man who believes in “new revelation,” while such a person is refused acceptance in another presbytery. The gold leaf is quickly disappearing, and it will probably be just a matter of time before non-acceptance of charismatics or charismatic sympathizers will be forbidden by the broadening church.

Another area of doctrinal declension touching the life of the church concerns the ordination of women. Two things are striking within my own presbytery. While I do not have an accurate accounting of this, my perception is that about two out of three candidates that come to be examined by our presbytery hold the position that at least the ordination of women to the office of deacon is acceptable. While most affirm they will not practice contrary to the PCA position, it is far less clear as to their teaching such false views. The second striking thing about this is that such views have never kept one from being approved. With two out of three, it is just a matter of time before the presbytery has a false view in the majority.

Meanwhile, a PCA church in North Carolina has ordained two women as deacons. It is true that under pressure, the church has “retracted” the ordination, but it is surely significant that such a thing could even happen. That debate has, according to reports, resulted in plans to send an overture to the 22nd General Assembly in June 1994. One needs a short memory not to remember how the unbiblical role of women in the liberal church began.

And could it be that the very doctrine of creation, with all of its many implications, is coming under attack? One hears rumblings of at least theistic evolution being suggested as “allowable diversity” within the PCA. More public and thus more certain in my experience are those who reject the orthodox position on the days of creation. Not only is the question of whether the “days” of Genesis 1 are literal twenty-four hour days left to the individual’s discretion, but the historicity of the order of the days is denied by PCA pastors in good standing. There are thus teaching elders in the PCA who believe and teach that Moses did not intend to provide a record of chronological sequence in referring to the first day, second day, etc., but that this is a mere artistic expression of God’s creation without historical accuracy.

I think this is what in my period of formal theological training was referred to as “form criticism,” “demythologizing,” and similar names. In beginning Hebrew we started reading in Genesis 12, because “chapters 1-11 are not literal history.” The PCA version is not as radical, but is it qualitatively different? A formal complaint on these issues has arisen in Calvary Presbytery and may be dealt with at the 1994 General Assembly. It will be interesting to see if some more gold leaf is peeling back.

Of the many things that could be mentioned in the doctrine and life of the church, the “regulative principle” of worship, set forth in WCF 2l:1, is a growing area of polarization and confrontation within the PCA (For some extended discussion of particulars cf. my “Does the Regulative Principle Matter to the PCA” in the April/May, 1993, issue of The Presbyterian Advocate.). Worship in particular and reformation in general may not be separated. The Scottish Reformation, for example, was built on the restoration of pure worship. We may not all agree on some particular exegesis, but we had better be agreed on the principle or there can be no unity.

Right now the PCA is not unified in this area. The regulative principle has been an element of both Memorials sent to the General Assembly by Concerned Presbyterians. In the 1994 Memorial two very specific items are addressed: “That the Twenty-Second General Assembly repudiate the use of liturgical dance and drama in the worship of any PCA church.” Practices which caused some to leave the PCUS and PCUSA are now thrust upon us even in the worship services of the General Assembly. We are fighting, not over some remote individual’s practice, but entrenched practice at the highest levels within the church.

.

NAVIGATING THE ECCLESIASTICAL WHITEWATER, OR CENTURY PLACE GATE

.

During the past two years a situation has emerged that just seems too incredible to believe. At a time when our national political life is almost daily absorbed with questions of coverup in high places, and when each new piece of information seems to raise even more questions, our denominational leadership seems bent on imitating the nightly news. Almost everybody with whom I have spoken is struck by the parallels.

The 20th General Assembly required all committees and agencies to participate in a Legal Audit. Most of us had never heard of a legal audit, but with corporations, a litigious society, and hostility toward Christianity there was quickly grasped the appropriateness of such a professional check to see if our ecclesiastical house was in order. The legal audit was completed in the Spring of 1993 and sent to the heads of the various committees and agencies. Upon request, a few men were allowed to see parts of the audit, after which further access was denied.

Some who saw portions of the legal audit believed there were some serious matters that deserved the attention of the General Assembly. The Committee of Commissioners on Administration sought all during the 21st General Assembly to have access to the audit. No credible reason was given for denying the General Assembly access through this Committee of Commissioners. A Minority Report was prepared to instruct those in possession of the audit to make full disclosure to the Committee and thus to the Assembly itself. At the last minute, that report was withdrawn, partly due to the fact that the Assembly was nearing completion and partly due to some expectation that full disclosure would be forthcoming, albeit late and unwilling. 

Between assemblies no progress has been made. In fact the leadership has hardened in its hiding of this information from those with a legal right to it, legal both with respect to civil law and our own church law (BCO 10-4, RAQ 3-2-e, Bylaws IV-3). A memorial/overture will be before the 22nd General Assembly directing that the legal audit be provided to its true owners. Official requests to the Stated Clerk in his capacity as Stated Clerk and in his capacity as secretary of the PCA corporation have received a flat “no,” along with the protest that this is “no coverup.” That was the first rime I heard the word “coverup” used in this controversy, but the louder the protest the more one grows in suspicion.

Why the concern? Truthfulness for one thing. Concern for the church’s integrity for another. A fifty-three page paper attributed to MacNair and Associates, Inc., has been leaked to concerned parties. This paper is “unofficial” as far as the General Assembly goes but proposes a massive restructuring of the PCA. It proposes everything from “permissible diversity” (i.e., loose subscription) to a plea to “trust” the bureaucracy by having the Committees of Commissioners “completely eliminated.” This would divorce the grassroots from the leadership and relieve the aggravation of a grassroots committee making the leadership accountable to the membership.

One of the incidental things that shows up in the MacNair paper is the following statement: “PCA’s Legal Counsel. Mr. Jim Ostenson, pointed out that Recommendations of the Legal Audit #’s I, 3, 4, 15, 16, 18 & 34 must be addressed” (emphasis mine). Is the PCA’s legal counsel for the membership or for the purpose of protecting the leadership from review? Is there a conflict of interest here? And is Mr. MacNair any more entitled to see the legal audit than my ruling elder who chaired the withdrawn minority report? To whom is our legal counsel and leadership accountable?

A portion of the Minority Report (which was withdrawn for reasons stated above) gave the following information which was found out before the access to the legal audit was withdrawn: “A [LexisNexis] (Legal Search), which is public record, discloses that there are eleven non-profit corporations and twelve for-profit corporations that list 1852 Century Place (The PCA Office Building) as the Registered Office of these corporations, and the [LexisNexis] lists PCA employees as some of the directors and officers of these corporations.” [The 1994 document “Profit and Nonprofit Corporations with Mailing Addresses in PCA Denominational Building” is available here. -ed.] This alone raises questions, even if everything is above board. When were these corporations approved, and by whom, and on what authority? Who authorizes non-PCA entities to operate from the PCA office building? Do they pay for this privilege? Is the General Assembly responsible for what they do? Do they use PCA utilities and supplies? Are there IRS implications? Is there a conflict of interest? Is there even an appearance of impropriety? It will be difficult to dispel these and other questions in a favorable way until there is a full disclosure.

.

THE “ATLANTA AFFIRMATION”

.

Practice, even nuts and bolts activity, grows out of doctrine. Our real concern is whether the PCA is gold. or just gold leaf. And this goes back to the sufficiency of the Holy Scriptures and the integrity with which we take our vows in respect to doctrine. A “loose” subscription to our Standards is a contradiction to the constitutional position of the Presbyterian Church in America.

Any orthodox Presbyterian with knowledge of history is well aware of the “Auburn Affirmation.” In 1923 the PCUSA was experiencing increasing polarity between strict and loose subscriptionists, between the orthodox and the modernists. A committee of 150 ministers issued a document which became known as the Auburn Affirmation. It claimed explicitly to be designed to “safeguard the unity and liberty” of the church, and the signers claimed to hold to the Confession and to preach earnestly “the doctrines of evangelical Christianity.” But in the name of liberty they refused to be bound to anyone interpretation of the doctrines of the Confession. They sounded orthodox “in general,” and they used orthodox terminology, much like the authors of the Confession of 1967 a generation later. It was only when the Auburn Affirmation was examined more closely that the modernistic assumptions became evident. The way their error was defended was to affirm that the five orthodox doctrines they denied were non-essential to the system of doctrine taught in the Bible and the Westminster Confession of Faith.

In March of 1994 I learned of another document, A Statement of Identity for the Presbyterian Church in America, and subtitled. PCA Consensus 1994. [Link to document here. – ed.] It is a poorly written seven-point doctrinal statement of affirmations and denials that seeks to interpret the WCF in a loose way in opposition to the concerns of Concerned Presbyterians. Even before I had the document in possession, the instinctive thought which went through my mind was that here is the Atlanta Affirmation which will appeal to liberty and the preaching of Christ as a reason not to be bound by the particular doctrines of the Confession.

It is important to say that this document has no official standing in the PCA and is presumably a first draft. It seems clear, however, that it is an attempt to legalize the “broad evangelicalism” now dominant in much of the PCA. It speaks of “our allowable diversity” and is calling for presentation at this G.A. with debate and acceptance as a “PCA Consensus” by 1996.

We need not critique this “affirmation” too much since it is not officially before the church. It is also difficult to critique it since it is not very precise in its affirmations and denials. One is reminded of the Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent, which was meant to be an answer to the Reformation. Many statements from Trent one can easily agree with until you realize that they believe the Reformers were guilty of such error. What is often anathematized is in reality a slanderous false representation of the Reformers. So in this “PCA Consensus 1994,” one often suspects a denial is aimed his way, even though it would be inappropriately aimed. There are, however, many points that are clear enough to give cause for alarm. We will limit ourselves to just a few examples.

In the introduction “we the undersigned” see one of the problems of the PCA to be: “A cumbersome structure … rather than the doxoiogical/theological/edificational/relational aspects of our communal life (thus unnecessarily trivializing our assemblies).” I am not sure one can know what that means, but I am reminded of the frequent Neo-orthodox and Neo-evangelical appeal to the Bible’s doxological expression when they did not want to affirm the specific proposition taught in Scripture.

On pages 4-6 the subscription issue is addressed, and this is surely at the heart of the conflict. It is affirmed that “the PCA is a subscriptionist church in which men … adopt the confession as containing the system of doctrine taught in Holy Scripture” (p. 4). It is then denied (p. 5) that men with exceptions “should not seek fellowship in the PCA.” In a pathetic confusion it is said that “Semper Reformanda … requires that the Reformed Faith be represented by a greater breadth than anyone camp can represent.” Openness to continuing reformation is not the issue of subscription. What it means and what integrity demands is that if something is found to be contrary to Scripture, then our subordinate standards are to be “reformed” according to the Scripture. In other words, amend the Confession! If a man’s exceptions do not contradict the clear teaching of Scripture, amend the Confession. But if a man’s exceptions are unbiblical (doctrines such as new revelation, repudiation of the historicity of Genesis, women’s ordination, drama as an element of worship), then he may not subscribe to our standards with integrity. By contrast, this hoped for “consensus” allows the exceptions to be taught (p. 6).

Though there are many other areas, for illustration let me mention just one more in the area of worship. Under the heading of “Regulative Principle” (p. 17) it is stated: “We affirm that the ‘elements’ of worship … are limited to those which God approves in Scripture ….We deny that human beings have liberty to devise elements of worship that God has not prescribed.” We agree; more importantly, that is what the Confession and Scripture teach. Do we then have one area of conflict resolved? Amazingly, just two affirmations later we read: “We affirm that there are elements…of…worship…somewhat controversial, such as the use of drama, dance….We affirm that the use of these elements…, although not specifically prohibited by the Scriptures…ought always to be decided with full reverence to God alone…” (emphasis mine). If they are “elements,” they must be commanded in Scripture and oblige us all; if, however, they are neither commanded NOR “specifically prohibited,” then they are prohibited just because they are not commanded, and no one may worship rightly this way. On p. 19 it says “worship is limited to those ‘elements’ that God’s Word prescribes.”

Affirming the regulative principle is clearly a deception if you then say drama and dance are permitted because the Bible does not specifically prohibit them. The sad confusion continues when it is said in slanderous fashion: “Unfortunately, the regulative principle is sometimes used as a club to force believers to worship according to older traditions…” (p. 19). The regulative principle is not about traditions; it is about elements commanded in the Word of God. Traditions may change, “But the word of our God stands forever” (lsa. 40:8; cf. 1 Peter 1:25).

 .

WHITHER?

.

No one who thinks about it will say that it is an easy thing to know where to draw the line between what a particular branch of the Church of Jesus Christ will tolerate and not tolerate with regards to qualifications for membership and leadership. But history shows us how quickly apostasy can come in the name of liberty and an avowed burden to take Christ to the world. I wrote a missionary recently, one whom our congregation has supported, raising a concern that he had gone on public record supporting “loose subscription” as the historic and right position of the PCA. His response concerned me far more than his supporting loose subscription. “I am totally serious about the vows I took,” he said, but added: “My personal view of the current debate is that we have too much kingdom work to do worldwide which seems hindered by our debating this issue past the point of reasonableness.” “Past the point of reasonableness,” yes, but we have hardly debated it. But the question of truth and obedience cannot be cast aside.

Do we really believe the Kingdom is advanced by our disobedience to God? Are vows made inoperative by mission strategy? Is obedience to the Great Commission done by NOT teaching all things whatsoever Christ has commanded? Will God really bless the efforts of human, worldly wisdom, in opposition to His will? To confuse compromise with love is deadly; to posit attention to due process as the opposite of being “pastoral” is wickedness and injustice waiting to happen.

Yet when one sees the content of the “Atlanta Affirmation,” it is troubling to find in that same document statements that the church ought not to “oppose and criticize her leaders” (p. 13). We have heard it too many times in too many ways: “Trust us; we just want to help you; it’s too complicated for ordinary pastors or ruling elders; the staff knows what needs to be done; we do not even need the Committees of Commissioners anymore.”

Excuse us if we demur. To those who see our Reformed distinctives as gold leaf, it may seem a little thing to peel it away and refurbish whatever is there with pragmatism. Some still desire to see if God might graciously reform and restore the pure gold.

.