26 April 2023
.
.
“But if the watchman see the sword come, and blow not the trumpet, and the people be not warned; if the sword come, and take any person from among them, he is taken away in his iniquity; but his blood will I require at the watchman’s hand.” [Ezekiel 33:6]
“For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.” [Ephesians 6:12]
Presbyterians Week Headlines
[1] Questions that Deserve Answers
Additional Articles of Interest
—
[1] Questions that Deserve Answers
I frequently get emails or telephone calls from people asking questions about Vanguard Presbytery—how we got started, what is our relationship with other reformed denominations, what we believe, how we are governed, etc. The questions are usually similar enough that there is value in writing some general answers to them for this email.
Q 1. Why did Vanguard start a new denomination rather than unite with an existing denomination?
We looked at all the existing reformed denominations and concluded that there were fundamental problems with all of them. First, those of us who were in the PCA simply could not remain there any longer because of a number of issues—LGBTQ, the Federal Vision, the increasing development of the hierarchy of the General Assembly, the loose subscription to the Westminster Standards, the secrecy of the National Partnership, and other reasons. The problems were too numerous, too deeply entrenched, and too fundamental for us to have any hope that the denomination would or could be turned around.
Second, leaving the PCA and going into a denomination that has fraternal relationships with the PCA was counter-intuitive to us. Those fraternal relationships will pull other denominations down to the level of the PCA. In fact, the OPC is already trending in the same direction as the PCA. They allow exceptions to the Westminster Standards; they have problems with the Federal Vision; and, they have progressive ministers and churches. The URCNA, the RPCNA, and the ARP all have their own problems.
Third, we could not unite with any denomination that retained any control over the local congregation’s property. That eliminated most other reformed denominations immediately.
Q 2. Why does Vanguard require full subscription to the Westminster Standards?
That question begs another question: Why not require full subscription? We are not saying that the Westminster Confession of Faith is a perfect document or that it is comprehensive. It is neither. Only the Scripture is infallible and inerrant. So, we do not require the same degree of subscription to the Westminster Standards as we do to the Scripture. We believe every word (ipsissima verba) of the Bible. We do not believe that the Westminster Confession of Faith was inspired, infallible, or inerrant. We do not believe that it always uses the very best language or could not be improved in some respects. We do believe that it is the best human statement of faith that has ever been devised. We are convinced that full subscription is the only way to preserve this denomination or any denomination. On the other hand, there are many illustrations of the dangers of allowing exceptions. What value is there in even having a confessional standard that supposedly represents your bedrock beliefs if you are going to allow officers to disagree with them. If they disagree, they can go into another denomination.
Q 3. Did Vanguard seek to get a consensus from the other reformed denominations on your distinctives?
No, we did not do that. Instead, we did something better. We took the best examples of Reformed churches from the history of the church, and we devised our distinctives from them. Those examples for us are: the first century churches founded by the apostle Paul; the Swiss Reformed churches at the time of the Protestant Reformation; the Free Church of Scotland in its early history; the New Side Presbyterians from 1741 to 1758; and, the Old School Presbyterians from 1838 to 1868. We felt that history was a better teacher and a better reference for us than trying to get some consensus from the modern Reformed churches.
Q 4. What is Vanguard’s view on hierarchy and polity?
There is a strange attraction by Presbyterians to some form of hierarchy in church polity. I think that goes back to the Protestant Reformation. Reformed churches came from Roman Catholicism and, perhaps, have always been more comfortable in top-down decision making rather than in truly Scriptural principles of polity. At the time of the reformation, things were turned around somewhat, but as the old saying goes, “The more things change, the more they stay the same.” Before the Reformation, the Roman Catholic Church ruled over both the church and the state. In the countries where the reformation took root, that was turned around, so that the state ruled over the church. Calvin’s consistory for St. Peter’s Church in Geneva had men who were representatives of the state. Things had changed in the sense that the Church no longer ruled over secular kingdoms and countries, but there was still control from the top. Calvin did not like that position and understood the Scriptural principles of church government. Nonetheless, he and other Reformed pastors had to endure a form of hierarchy.
In Vanguard, we have taken steps to prevent any hierarchical church government. The General Assembly will not have the power to control or dictate to the churches under them. The GA will decide legislative and doctrinal and judicial issues that are brought before them, but there will be no permanent committees allowed to consolidate power and dictate to the churches of the denomination. The work of fulfilling the Great Commission will be done by local congregations and presbyteries where there is the possibility of proper oversight, encouragement, and accountability. It is impossible to carry out the work of the Great Commission at the General Assembly level. To whom are the missionaries accountable? They are not governed by a deliberative assembly (which all church courts are) but by a Coordinator and a few people under him. In other words, they are governed by an episcopal-type system with the coordinators being the bishops. They are not governed by a Presbyterian church court.
Q 5. Has not Vanguard already suffered a split?
No, Vanguard has not suffered a split. We did have a very few churches that had been in several denominations before applying for membership in Vanguard who have left us. They were unable to get along in other denominations and they proved to be true to themselves in Vanguard also. Some of their nastiness became evident to most people in Vanguard before they left, but most of their nastiness was directed at me and no one (not my wife, not Al Baker, not Rick Light, not the stated clerk, Thomas Joseph, not anyone) knows all they said and did before they left. I took it and bore it because I knew that those men would have no qualms in tearing Vanguard completely apart. Personally, I think that whole matter is a badge of merit for Vanguard. Most denominations have problems like that and try to placate troublemakers rather than shaking the dust off their feet. In a podcast with John Harris two years ago, I was asked how Vanguard would maintain purity. I told him we had to do two things—guard the front door and use the back door. It takes discipline at both doors. Vanguard had an attempted hostile takeover, and we came through it well, in my opinion.
But, as far as splits are concerned, remember these facts. A year after calling the twelve as His disciples, Jesus referred to one of them as a devil. Every denomination and every congregation in the whole history of the church has suffered defections. I John 2:19 tells us to expect that to happen. Within a few years after the OPC was started, they split into two additional denominations—the Reformed Presbyterian Church Evangelical Synod and the Bible Presbyterian Church. Defections happen and it is not always a bad thing.
Q 6. Is not Vanguard guilty of schism by not joining another existing denomination?\
First, if the starting of Vanguard was schismatic, then every denomination in existence today is also guilty of schism. Schism did not originate in 2020. Of course, there is a more important question that first has to be answered. What is schism? According to the great John Owen, schism is causeless differences which do not strike at the heart of the gospel. Every reason that we had for leaving our former denomination had to do with things essential to the gospel. So, NO, Vanguard is not being schismatic for leaving the PCA.
Dewey Roberts, Pastor of Cornerstone Presbyterian Church in Destin, FL
+ Vanguard Presbyterian Church, PO Box 1862, Destin, Florida 32540, (850) 376-3166, drob9944@aol.com
The Central London County Court has handed down its ruling dismissing a Christian family’s claim against their child’s former school, Heavers Farm, for attempting to force him in participating in an LGBT themed Pride Parade.
Supported by the Christian Legal Centre, Izzy and Shane Montague brought the claim after a series of events which left them feeling intimidated and discriminated against for challenging the school over the LGBT education of their 4-year-old son, which included mandatory participation in a school run Pride Parade to celebrate Pride Month. The family will appeal the decision.
Parents were informed about the LGBT themed Pride celebration only days in advance when they received a rainbow-coloured invitation to attend the event. In preparation for the parade, children were taught the popular ‘gay anthems’ ‘We are Family’ and ‘True Colours’, which they had to sing while marching around the school.
The children were also required to create rainbow themed art, which the school’s lesson plan held out as an assignment to show support for the diverse LGBT community. The march also featured several large and conspicuous Pride flags. A number of members of staff were photographed at the event wearing LGBT campaigning themed t-shirts, with one teacher wrapping himself in a Pride flag.
The school told all parents that holding the parade was a legal requirement and even said to one parent it was against the law for their son not to attend.
Over 182 children were withdrawn by their parents on the day of the parade.
Despite all of this, the Country Court ruled that the event was, in fact, not a promotion of LGBT but part of a general programme to promote equality and inclusivity.
Circuit Court Judge Christopher Lethem went so far as to find that there was little in the parade that was inconsistent with the Montague’s Christian beliefs. (Paragraph 160 of judgment)
Elsewhere in the judgment, the Court found that a Stonewall campaigning poster that was hung in the school and read “Some people are gay. Get over it!” was not only consistent with Christianity, but is what Church teaching advocates. (Paragraph 145 of judgment)
Despite the Head Teacher admitting these songs included in the parade are gay anthems, Lethem ruled that there was “no evidence that these are gay anthems in the context in which they were deployed”, and that the Rainbow flag was emblematic of everyone being “Proud to be me”.
Agenda driven education
During oral testimony, two members of the leadership team, including the school’s head teacher Susan Papas, and the Montague’s son’s teacher during the relevant time, all testified that they believed Christian views about homosexual behaviour and relationships was homophobic.
Mr Askey said he considered it homophobic for someone to say that homosexual activity was a sin, likewise Ms Copeman-Papas said that not allowing a man who identifies as a woman to use a woman’s toilet was transphobia.
When asked about the school’s teaching on family structures, none of the school’s leadership team, while under oath, would admit that a mother must be biologically female. Both the headteacher Ms Papas and her daughter Ms. Copeman-Papas, when in the witness box, testified that a woman was someone who identified as a woman.
In internal emails provided by the school as part of oral evidence, the school asserted that there was a group of parents at the school who were considered ‘bigots’ for opposing the LGBT education of their primary school aged children.
The headteacher also commented on the views of one parent who objected to their child’s participation in the Parade on religious grounds, stating that it was because of such parents that the Pride parade must be mandatory.
In an email sent to a supporter of the Pride event, the Headteacher also smeared Mrs Montague: “This parent really does have a strange (and offensive) take on the world; we are working hard to make sure that the children in our schools don’t share these views!”
During this time, images also emerged on the school’s website of a year 1 pupil with a placard that she had written after a lesson about Martin Luther King’s “I have a dream” speech. It said: “I have a dreem if bois cood go to the saim toilet as gerls.”[Sic]
Heavers Farms ill-treatment of Izzy Montague and her son
After requesting that her son be withdrawn from the parade, Mrs Montague was told that if her son did not attend it would be seen as a behavioural issue. At least one other parent was told that they would be breaking the law if they kept their child at home on the day of the parade.
Despite the vast majority of English schools not having LGBT themed parades, one parent was told that holding the parade was a ‘legal requirement’ and therefore attendance was mandatory.
In her complaint, Mrs Montague said the school had breached the Equality Act 2010 and the Human Rights Act. In particular, she asserted that the ‘Pride parade’ was unlawful “discrimination against children who follow their Christian or any other mainstream religion.”
In her legal claim, the Montagues submitted that the school created a ‘hostile’ and ‘intimidating’ atmosphere towards any parents who dissented against the LGBT ideology that was forced on their children.
One example was at a formal meeting between the Montagues and the school hierarchy to discuss the concerns, the head teacher’s daughter, Ms. Copeman-Papas, was wearing a T-shirt upon which had emblazoned across it “Why be Racist, Sexist, Homophobic, Transphobic, when you can just be quiet”.
The judge said that he believed that the wearing of that T-shirt to the meeting with Izzy Montague was not deliberate, but nonetheless it set “entirely wrong tone and it was entirely reasonable for the parents to view this as a hostile message. Izzy Montague was warned at the outset of the meeting that should she say anything ‘homophobic’, the meeting would be stopped immediately.
On the day that the school sent its response to Mrs Montague denying any wrongdoing and dismissing her complaints, her son, who had never received a detention before, was given a 2-hour detention. He was also given a further detention the following day.
Ultimately, Mrs Montague was banned from the schoolyard because of her efforts to get answers about the detention; a move which was criticised by the Court as violating its school policies.
Believing she was being bullied and refusing to be silenced, the Montagues faced no alternative but to withdraw their son from the school and launch legal action.
Judging Heavers Farm
The Court found that the school’s focus on LGBT education and the Pride event would have the effect of normalising LGBT issues for the very young children who attended the school. The judgment recognised that the school’s communication was poor and placed too much emphasis on LGBT issues.
The Court also found that the circumstances of the meeting the school had with the Montagues could be interpreted as a hostile injunction labelling them as potentially ‘homophobic’.
The Court criticised the school for not knowing its own policies. The judge also ruled that the manner in which Mrs Montague was banned from the school “could be indicative of a school that was riding roughshod over the parents’ rights because of an animus against the Claimants because of their complaints.”
“This is not over.”
Mrs Montague commented about the ruling: “This judgment bears absolutely no resemblance to the truth of what happened at the school and in the court room.
“I refute the grotesque caricature of me of some crazed mother at the school who needed controlling. I was and am a loving mother and a scientist who stood up to my 4-year-old’s school over their attempted sexualising of our youngest children.
“This judgment props up a carefully fabricated defence put forward by the school which put the thinnest veneer of what they were doing. It turns black into white and white into black.
“Throughout this ordeal it has felt like I and my Christian beliefs that have been on trial.
“This is not over and we will appeal this perverse judgment which has made the evidence fit with the school’s agenda.
“What are parents like us meant to do? The Court appears to be as ideologically motivated as the school.
“No parent should have to go through what I, and so many other parents at Heavers Farm have, for wanting to protect the innocence of their children and raise them according to their own beliefs. I am a Christian, and I don’t believe there is anything redeeming about forcing a 4-year-old child to march among rainbow flags and sing ‘gay anthems’.”
“I am deeply insulted by the Court’s assertion that there is nothing inconsistent between my Christian beliefs and my 4-year-old being forced to march in a Pride event surrounded by rainbow pride flags and teachers wearing LGBT affirming campaigning shirts.”
Inclusivity unless you are Christian
Andrea Williams, Chief Executive of the Christian Legal Centre, said:
“I have known Shane and Izzy Montague and the facts of this case for five years. We have walked alongside them and I can honestly say that the judgment reads like fiction. It bears no resemblance to what actually happened.
“It uses contorted logic and distortion of the facts to fit an ideological outcome it appears the Court was determined to reach.
“Today’s judgment is remarkable for all of the wrong reasons. While the government has recognised the pitfalls of leaving the content of LGBT and sex education to the discretion of schools, and called for a review, this Court has gone the other way. Despite finding that the school put too much emphasis on LGBT issues and normalised them for primary school aged children, it ruled that the Pride event was actually about tolerance and diversity, and not LGBT. This Montagues will appeal, and rightfully so.
“What this entire case stands for is that there are some schools in this country where biblical beliefs and Christians are not welcomed. Today’s judgment has given a green light to ideological headteachers who wish to mould young minds into LGBT advocates, and abuse any parents who dissent.
“There are absolutely no circumstances where it is acceptable to force a 4-year-old Christian child to march in an LGBT themed Pride parade against his parents’ wishes. As a nation with such an esteemed history of liberty and Christian values, we are better than that.”
+ Christian Concern, 70 Wimpole Street, London W1G 8AX, England, 020 7935 1488, Contact Page
Bryn Mawr, Pa. – April 24, 2023 – The Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals will host its 50th annual Philadelphia Conference on Reformed Theology (PCRT) this Friday to Sunday, April 28 to 30, at Proclamation Presbyterian Church at 278 S. Bryn Mawr Avenue in Bryn Mawr, Pa. PCRT’s semicentennial theme, “Here We Stand: The Five Solas of the Reformation,” addresses “Scripture alone, by faith alone, by Christ alone, by grace alone, and to the glory of God alone.” First held in 1974 at the historic Tenth Presbyterian Church in Philadelphia, PCRT is the nation’s oldest, continually operating Reformed theology conference, which also now runs annually in Michigan. For more information, visit alliancenet.org/here-we-stand-PCRT50.
“The 2023 gathering of PCRT will mark a half century of joining the great Reformers by standing on God’s holy, authoritative Word,” said PCRT Chairman and speaker Rev. Dr. Richard Phillips who also previously served as pastor of Tenth Presbyterian Church. “We will commemorate this year remembering why the five solas are vital.”
* Pre-Conference Schedule: Friday, 9:15 a.m. to 2:30 p.m. (lunch break at noon).
* Conference Schedule: Friday, 7:00 p.m. to 8:30 p.m.; Saturday, 8 a.m. to 8:30 p.m.; Sunday worship, 8:45 and 10:30 a.m.
About the Alliance: Headquartered in Lancaster, Pa., the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals is a coalition of Christian believers who hold to the historic creeds and confessions of the Reformed faith and proclaim biblical doctrine in order to foster a Reformed awakening in today’s Church. It primarily does so through broadcasting, printed and online publishing, and special events. Founded in 1949, the Alliance also played a strategic role in the International Council on Biblical Inerrancy. Visit alliancenet.org.
+ Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals, 600C Eden Road, Lancaster, Pennsylvania 17601, 888-956-2644, alliance@alliancenet.org
Additional Articles of Interest
– Planned Parenthood 2021 Annual Report Shows It Killed 374,155 Babies in Abortions
– Alarming Findings Link COVID Jabs to Increased Miscarriage
– Joe Biden Will Launch National Abortion Hotline to Promote Killing Babies in Abortions
– Here We Go Again: Deranged Voters Looking for a Political Savior
– African Anglican Churches Reject the Critical Social Justice Cult and Stand by Their Faith
Comments are closed for this Article !