1994 issue 8 - the pca's proposed statement of identity: can two walk together except they be...

8/12/2019 1994 Issue 8 - The PCA's Proposed Statement of Identity: Can Two Walk Together Except They Be Agreed? - Coun

1/5

Can two

walk together except they be

agreed?

Amos

3:3

The proposed "Identity" statement

answers

the

question "can two walk

together except theybe agteed?"

In

the

affirmative, at least

if

we can just agree

to disagtee. Itstates "We want to learn

to live successfully with the allowable

diversity in the Reformed Faith rather

than to eliminate

it

through political

means

...

Our

desire is to be

...

A Reformed Church

Always Reforming."

The revival

of

A

Concerned Presbyterian

Movement

and

a proposed

"Identity" statement for the

PCA have brought to a head

the

fact that

there are

different

theological

currents,

ifnot

rivers,within

the PCA and that particular

issues are dividing and

perhaps,

as

they

put it,

distracting the PCA from

devoting her energy and resources to

her "primary mission in Christ.

Therefore, we ought to be sincerely

grateful for these effons to call the

church

to identify, address,

and

resolve

these issues.

f we were honest, and this seems

like a good time to be honest, the PCA

from

the beginning

has embraced

within her fellowship Calvinists and

conservative evangelicals who only

loosely,

often

reluctantly,

and

sometimes grudgingly, have held to

the Reformed distinctives. Since the

formation

of

the PCA additional

currents

have flowed into the PCA, a

growing Charismatice1ement, brethren

from the former RPCES, the OPC, and

the UPUSA. As these have brought

their own

varied

historical

denominational traditions, emphases,

and perspectives,we have experienced

mounting

tensions that now are

at

the

point of

fracturing the PCA.

Indeed, we should be zealous to

maintain the unity

and

peace

of

the

church in

truth

to th glory of God.

We must all

be

hesitant to divide the

body of Christ as manifest in the PCA.

There is

always the danger

of

theological myopia that comes from

listening only to those who agree

with

us, Growth

in

understanding often

comes

in

the crucible of discussion

and debate, especially when discussing

from the same presuppositions. One

of he problems in the PCAhistorically

has been the division into theological

camps whichsimply discount the other

side. We must, however, alsobe

just

as

zealous to maintain and perpetuate

the church

of the LordJesus Christ as

the "pillar and ground of the truth" 1

Tim. 3:15),

and not

as a cafeteria

of

theological preferences and practices.

Because I knowseveral

of

hesigners

of the "Identity" statement personally

and the commitment to the Reformed

faith

by

others is a matter of public

record, I consider this document a

sincere

and

serious attempt to address

and resolve issues in

our

denomination

for the good of the church and the

advance

of

he GospeL The cruxof the

"Identity" statement is stated

in

the

introduction:"We want to learn to live

successfully with

the

allowable

10 THE COUNSEL

of

Chalcedon October November, 1994

diversity

in

the Reformed Faith rather

than to eliminate it through political

means .... OUr desire is to be .... A

Reformed Church Always Reforming."

The presupposition

of

the

Consensus statement as expressed in

the Introduction is that the PCA has a

solid commitment to the "Lordship of

Jesus Christ" imd "the ReformedFaith."

The firs t principle is that within the

broad umbrella

of the

Reformed Faith there is

a

llowable

diversity.

Secondly, the Scriptures

alone are the Word of God

.written and theWestminster

Standards are not to ' be

equated

with

Scripture.

Thirdly, a truly Reformed

church

is Semper

Reformanda: always

reforming.

No one would dispute

or

eqUivocate concerning

the Reformed principles

of

the Con

ce

nsus

Statement.

The

Concensus Statementassumes that the

iss1;le

is now to formally determine the

areas of "allowablediversity"and what

doctrinesin theWestminster Standards

need to be revised in the name

of

"Semper Reformanda," The issue for

some, however, runs deeper than this.

There

is

a genuine "sincerity" issue.

Have

men who

subscribed to the

Westminst

er

Standards already

departed from historiC Reformed

doctrines

in

significant areas

under

allowable

diversity and

the

"fundamentals of the system" clause,

and do they "sincerely" receive

and

adopt the Confession ofFaith and the

catechisms

of

his Churchascontaining

the system of doctrine taught

in

the

Holy Scriptures,"

and

did they make

known to their Presbyteries any

changes

in

their viewsconcerning "the

fundamentals of

this

system of

doctrine?


2/5

At

issue

for

some is, not what

we

may do, but what we have already

done? Have individuals, perhaps

Presbyteries and General Assembly

committees, andlor General Assembly

administrators already allowed and

practiced

diversity

from the

fundamentals of the Standards

in

their

beliefs and practices? And are they

now, after the fact , asking the

denomination to officially recognize

their diversities and differencesso that

these matterswill no longerbematters

of question, complaint, appeal, or

discipline, and not only be allowed

but become the operating principles

of the

PCA?

Constitutionalchurchand

freely

depan

from theconstitutionin theirpractices.

That this has apparently been the

practice is where a great deal of the

animus comes from bythosewho hold

to

the

historic Reformed and

Westminster positions. Those who

have diverged and differ from the

Standards, in the light of continuing

resistance by those who hold to the

historic

"Reformed" positions as

expressed in the

Westminster

Standards, have decided they must

have theirviews

fOlmally

tolerated and

embraced as "allowabledifferences"in

order to avoid continuing conflictand

distraction and to practice them.

The fact is that the PCA already has

an identitystatement, the Westminster

Constitution. f it

is

promoting

changingthe Constitution this itself is

the result of having allowed men into

the denomination who did not agree

with the Constitution to begin with

and thereby reflects a failure to uphold

the Constitution

in

examination

and

receptions. The onus is on those who

wish to

be

acceptable, to change the

direction or identity of the PCA, and

not on those who wish to adhere to it.

This is why the "stlict subscription"

issue has been the focal point of

much

of the debate and discussion.

The Consensus Statement is for

some,

not

necessarily all the Signers,

therefore, essentially a confession of

disagreement with the ConfeSSion, a

confession

by

others that perhaps theyhere is

no

question,

for

example,

that the historic Reformed

and

Westminster position is that

revelation and gifts associated

The fact

ie

th t the

PCA

already

hae;

an

identity e;tatement.

the

Westmine;ter Confee;e;ion

and Catechisme;,

with

revelation have ceased,

visual pictures ofjesusasworship

aids have historically been

viewed

as

contrary to thesecond

commandment, and dance and

drama have not been

induded

within the parameters of "The

regulative principle of worship,"

never

did

agree

with

the

Westminster Standards, and a

call to

either change or

circumvent the constitution.

The consensus statement is an

attempt to declare that these

particular doctrines orpractices

are allowable in the PCA and

therefore are

no

longer matters

of heological debate,complaint,

appeal, or discipline. Thus, these

issues will be effectively resolved

nly to mention a few of the

issues.

No

one could legitimately

view

these as anything less than departures

from the fundamentals of the system.

Are

not

these matters thatshouldhave

been

disclosed to Presbytery

in

examination for approval and

reception, not

by

a mass protest or

confession at General Assembly?

Should anyone assume that i they

differ

from

the Confession

in

these

areas they may practice their

views? To

discoverthat many

men

in

the

PCA

do

not hold to these positions brings into

question their sincerity

in

su bsclibing

to the Westminster Standards or the

carefulness of

the

Presbytelies to

examine these men. No one is allowed

to personally

invoke

"Semper

Reformanda" and "The Bible is the

only rule of faith

and

practice"

in

a

Confession and Catechisms. The fact

is thatwhat is being argued

for

in some

cases is divergence from that historic

confession and creed and from the

stated direction and commitments of

the

PCA

at her formation. The fact

is

that byallowing into the denomination

men who apparentlydiffered from the

Confession we have a significant

number who now wish to change the

Constitution. In the final analysis, the

Constitution I know, theWestminster

Standards I know, the Book of Church

order I know - but I don't know what

a "Consensus Statement" is, or more

importantly, whatstanding, autholity

it would have in the denomination. It

certainly has the appearance o f saying

that we don't have to agree with our

Constitution without changing the

and will

no

longer occupy the time of

the church, allowing

her

to give

attention to her primary "mission".

This in itself reflects a narrow view of

the mission of the church. Thechurch

must not only proclaim the

truth but

defendandpreservethe truth It seems

to me that the consensus paper has

the

appearance of an "endrun" aroundthe

constitution because there are those

who find that their views arenot in fact

in

accord with the Westminster

Standardsor have changed their views.

The

issue still

remains as

to

particular areas of doctrinal diversity

suggested in how

the church should

regard those who have allowable

differences. As I have indicated, I

believe their is allowable diversity

within the Reformed Faith; I do

not

October November,

1994

TJi COUNSEL

o

ch lcedon


3/5

hold to every teaching of he standards

myself, and I have always sought to

declare

my

personal exceptions to the

Standards

before Presbytery

when

examined. Neither do I agree with

some of the positiOns taken by men

with

whom I generally agree, that, for

example, the

peA

was self-consciously

or intentionally organized as a "strict"

subscriptionist church, that all

"pictOrial representations of Jesus"

necessarily violate

the

second

commandment,or that there

is

no room for

valid

differences in understanding

and applying the regulative

princtple of worship. I am

not

an

exclusive Psalm

singer,

I

believe that

Christians

can

rejoice

in

and

celebrate the birth of Jesus,

andthatindividualsandchoirs

can lead the congre-gation in

worship, for

example.

Therefore, I

do

believe (and

hope) that there is room

for

diversityin the ReformedFaith

and in the PCA.

As far as the document itself is

concerned, not to go through every

topic, the "devil"

is in

the details,

not

in the princtples. There

is

a giant leap .

from "Semper Reformanda" to some of

the spectfic positions advocated. Are

we talkingabout allowable diversity or

allowable departure from the Reformed

Faith? Also,

many

of the affirmations

and denials are often dangerously

general, vague,

and open

to wide

interpretation and application. This

lack of" prectsion in many positions

will only serve to widen the diversity,

loosen

the

church

from

the

Westminsterand Reformed Standards,

and further "de-form" the church.

For example, as I read the chapter

on Scripture in the Identity statement,

and in the light

of

the current debate

and discussion on revelation and

tongues, I would read the statement as

allOwing tongues,

prophecy,

and

continuing revelationin the peA. The

only exclusion

would

be adding

anything to the Word of God written

or regarding new and continuing

revelation as having the authority

of

Scripture. This is

not

only an

implication but is also stated in such a

way that

it

may

not be

immediately

clear that this is the position advocated.

Is this a case of verbal subterfuge or

merely a failure to communicate?

divergent but allowable view does

not

include the liberty to teacher practice

that view. This does not preclude

an

individual or Presbytery seeking to

change the constitution in order to

bring

it

into stricter conformity

to the

Word of God, or appeal to the General

Assembly concerning a matter which

in their view has been erroneously

adjudicated. Thus the church acts

through her courts (as a Christian

family ) To determine, to

define,

and

to declare the

docttine and practices of the

church. This also is a part of

the mission of the church

To be Reformed is to be

committed both to

the

SCriptures as

the

final rule of

faith and practice

and

to the

Westrninster Standards as

an

expression of the teaching of

the Bible. To subscribe to the

standards

means

that you

believe

that

what the

standards teach the Bible

teaches. "We do not have to

On"pg. 5, the statement

speaks

of choose between the two. Let it also be

the traditional form of said that

we

do believe in "Semper

dispensationalism" and "theonomy as Reforrnanda." Therefore, thesta.ndards

popularlyunderstood."Doesthatmean can

be

changed. But

let

it

also

be

said,

that a person can say that he is not a that i one disagrees with the

"traditional dispensationalist" and be constitution of the church he should

accepted in the PCAanda"theonomist" declare his differences, submit to

tl: e

be rejected beCause of "popular mis- constitution and the

couns

of the

understandings" of their views? church, change the constitution

by

the

I would exhort the brethren to

proper

and due process of the church,

follow the order

and

procedure that or seek a fellowship consistent with

we have historically followed in our his views. It might be argued that this

constitutionassuffic entinaddressing is

exactly

what

the

C6ncensus

these matters. Each officer ought to Statement is promoting. What I am

sincerely subscribe to the standards as suggesting is that some have already

teaching what the Scriptures teach. f let the chickens in the house

and

now

they differ at any point with those they wantthemratified. Brethren have

doctrines, they should declare to their apparently already departed from the

Presbytery those views or doctrines Constitution of he

Church

which they

with which they disagree, allowing the have subscribed

to

and now are only

Presbytery

to

judge whether they are seeking to legitimize thei r views.

inimical to the system of doctrine, or There is an even more important

allowable. Allowinga person to hold a underlying "presupposition" that I

12 THE COUNSEL of

Chakedon

October November, 1994


4/5

think is erroneous and needs to be

recognized

as

at the root of the

problem. It is arguable, I believe, to

state in the first paragraph of the

introduction to the Consensus

Statement that the

PCA

was bornwith

a solid commitment to "The Reformed

Faith." This is the "myth" of the

PCA

From the beginning the PCA has

been a mixed multitude of broad

evangelical

and Reformed

commitments. This is, in fact, the root

of the problem within the PCA. The

issue is understated when the writers

speak

as

i he problem is merely

one

of "allowable diversity" within the

Reformed Faith. However, this might

be understandable

since, to my

knowledge, only four of he signers of

the "Concensus Statement" were

original

PCA

members or signers of

"The Address

to

All the Churches."

Most of the Signers of the statement

appear to me to be from outside the

PCA in denominational background,

OPC, RPCES, UPUSA, etc. The

significance of this

is,

I believe, that

many of these

men who came from

different and sometimes stronger

Reformed backgrounds, regard the

PCA

as

having a stronger and more

knowledgeable commitment to the

Reformed distinctives than it actually

does. I would sincerely and humbly

suggest that the problem is much

deeper thanallowabledifferences, that

on

the part of many

in

the

PCA

these

diversities arise from a lack

0

f

commitment to the

Reformed

Distinctives at all. In fact, it

is

my

opinion that while there has been a

growth of appreciation for Reformed

doctrine since the birth of the PCA,

many ofthe churches and Elders

have

very little commitment to Reformed

distinctives andviewthemas obstacles

to church growth, evangelism, and

missions. They have a historical and

perhaps sentimental loyalty to the

Westminster Standards which

however, does not govern, control, or

inforrn their practices. In fact, theyare

more governed and controlled by

broad evangelicalism than the

Reformed Faith.

I realize that for me to say this will

be taken by some to be anogant,

ignorant, and may open myself

to

severe criticism. However, I say this

based upon my firsthand experience

and participation in the formation of

the PCA. I

was

defrocked

for

departing

the

PCUS

to

fOlm

and join the PCA. I

am an originalsigner of "The Address

To All

Churches." The PCA has since

her birth been a mixed theological

fellowship, the fmit of which has

manifestitselfin practical missionand

ministerial issues, and is the source of

the debates, divisions, and distractions

in the denomination.

On paper, in 1973, the PCA

expressed its commitment to the

Westminster Standards and "The

Address To All The Churches."

However, in reality many of the

preachers, churches, and people I

knew had little commitment to the

distinctives and implications of the

Reformed Faith. I was converted and

nurtured

in

the Lord

under the

ministry of conservative evangelicals

in the PCUS in 1963, and ministered

in the fellowship of a number of those

men and churches involved in the

formation of the PCA. I was a youth

evangelist with

PEF, attended

conferences and

reVivals,

preached

in

churches,

and

was a part ofthe circles

of many of those who were involved

in Concerned Presbyterians, the

Presbyterian Journal

and

The

Continuing Presbyterian Church. It

was not until I entered RTS in 1969

that I came to know and understand

the RefOlmed Faith. While ISincerely

admire

and

appreCiate the

commitment of those men

for

their

evangelistic zeal, who fought for

conservative, evangelical theology

amidst liberalism, I realized that the

men, the methods, the movement that

I had been

nmtured

and ministered in

were essentially Alminian in practice

and perspective. Many of these same

men and churches were instmmental

in establishing the PCA.

Indeed, the reason for separation

fromthe PCUSwannotoverReformed

distinctives or strict SUbSCliption

but

evangelical distinctives, commitment

to

the inspiration

and

infallibility of

the Scripture the virgin birth

creationism, evangelismand missions,

etc. The Wesrminster Standards were

adopted by the

PCA,

at least

on

the

part of many i not most, I believe, .

merely out of tradition more than

conviction.

From the earliest days

of

the

PCA

men who sought to be faithful to

Reformed principles, were labeled

"TR's"

("Thoroughly Reformed") for

trying to follow the Constitution and

were viewed

and

treated

as

a threat

and disruption

to the goals and

methods of the "PCA" which were

in

fact more

in

tune with broad

evangelicalism than the Reformed

tradition. What the PCA adopted in

prinCiple

and

Signed on paper was

not

the theology by in large of the pulpit

or the pew. Therefore, some of the

issues in thePCAarenotover allowable

diversity within the Reformed faith at

all, but ofreal heart rooted differences

over basic theology. Thus,

if

this

"Consensus Statement" were adopted

it would give greater latitude and

liberty to those who have never

embraced the Reformed distinctives

in the first place to further ignore and

detach themselves from them.

Take, for example, the issue

of

"Pictures ofjesus." Thereare Reformed

and Biblical arguments concerning

whether or not visual images may be

made to represemJesus. But I dare say

on luded on

pg

3

October November,

1994

TH

COUNSEL of

Chalcedon

13


5/5

t])iso6etfience

6y

InaPainter

$readof

cfeceit

is sweet to

a

manj out afterwardS nis

11WUtn

sna{{

oe

forecf

witli

graver. JJ

Proverbs

20:17

'lJisooeaience

mask itself

as oeing re(ative{y unimportant,

a rationa[izeapause,

going

unnoticecC,

promising no fasting iffect.

lfaving

oegun to

waiver

in

tlie

narrow patfiway

we cease to ponaer

~ - - w f i a n J t u ; n I T a s - 6 r c r a c F w : i c F - ~

now

tfie cfioue

maae

'I1ie p{easurea

sin

_oot

{oo (g.cC,

at first to

oe no

fiarm,

lias

pusfiea

it

wi({ju{

way

ana

we

are

victims

afreaay,

fiaving faen prey

to sin's

controc.

( But

every

man is temptei

when he is arawn away o

his

own rust, anaenticed.

'Then

when

rust

hath

con-

ceivei it Gnngeth forth

sin:

anasin, when

it is

finishei Gnngeth forth

aeath.

JJ

James

1:

14-15

Coneeneue. cont. from pg 18

that for some

in

the PCA, the issue

isnotwhat the Scripturessay, what

the Larger Catechism

says,

but that

this is simply a hindrance to

effective evangelism, and "our

times deIilllnd" (another dangerous

phrase from

the Consensus

Statement) that we not be so strict

in

our doctrine. Their ultimate

practice is governed, not by

Scripture,

not by

the Reformed

Faith, not by

concern

for or

confidence

in

doing God's work

God's way, not by confidence

in

the sovereignty of God who is

saving His elect through the

preaching of the tru th, but by the

anti Reformed "Arminian"

approach and atmosphere that says

we

must

use whatever means

32 THE COUNSEL

of

Chalcedon October November, 1994

Non-Profit

Org.

U.S. Postage

P ID

BULK RATE

Permit

No.

1553

Greenville, SC

29602

possible

to

get

as

many saved as we

can and we shouldn't let theology

get in our

way

I am concerned that some of

the views of

the

"Consensus

Statement" not only depart from

the Reformed tradition but that it

really

fails to

deal with the realroot

problem and to gloss over, to

insulate, latent, real, and practical

Arminianism in the

PCA

in the

name of "allowable diversity."

The PCA has an identity.

t

is

stated in her Constitution. The

crisis is not because she has no

identity but because she has

departed from her identity. This is

what is

so

egregious

to

those in the

PCA

who are still committed

to

her

original

position and

declarations.

Q

1994 issue 8 - the pca's proposed statement of identity: can two walk together except they be...

Documents