From the blog of Andrew Barnes, Editor

There are many questions circulating out there by some elders of the PCA concerning the future of our denomination.

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.’

“Getting Set For What’s Coming”

By W. Jack Williamson

In considering this subject I am reminded of the lyrics of a popular song, which goes like this:

Que Sera Sera
What will be, will be!
The future’s not mine to see!
Que Sera Sera

Since I can’t know anything about the future or do anything about it, I “get set for what’s coming” by stoically girding up my loins and waiting for the worst. This is not an unprevalent mood among conservative Presbyterians today. But I would suggest that such an attitude is not consistent with Calvinistic Reformed theology. We do believe as the Westminster Confession states: “God from all eternity did by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass”.

But to those who have been redeemed through the blood of Jesus Christ, Paul says that God has “made known unto us the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure which he hath purposed in himself.”

Thus our God has a plan; and He has made known unto us portions of that plan in the Holy Scriptures. In the Bible there are revelations of “what’s coming” in God’s plan; and we should keep in mind these revealed certitudes of the future as we “get set for what’s coming”.

For instance, the Apostle Peter in the third chapter of his second epistle, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, writes of the great crisis which the true church of Jesus Christ must be prepared to face in its last days of witness upon this earth. He says that crisis shall be one of skepticism within the confines of the professing church.

Now to meet this crisis the apostle does not appeal to our emotions. That’s no help in meeting this challenge. Rather he writes:

“This second epistle beloved, I now write unto you: in both which I stir up your pure minds by way of remembrance.”

Peter is warning us not to try to meet this crisis on impetuous, emotional impulse; but we should carefully think through decisions with “pure minds”. But of what should we be mindful?

“That ye may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets and of the commandments of the Apostles of the Lord and Savior”.

In other words, to meet this crisis there is only one resource; and that is to turn to the written Word of God and to understand what God has spoken in that word. Ultimately this is our final appeal – to God’s written word. But we had better know what is written in that word or we will be helpless in the crisis.

Now, how does Peter describe the crisis? Listen to his words:

“Knowing this first that there shall come scoffers, walking after their own lusts, and saying “Where is the promise of his coming?”

This question the scoffers ask “where is the promise of his coming?” shows that they are not pagans but churchmen for only in the Bible do they find such a promise. So the scoffers are within not without the church. They know what the Bible says. They just don’t believe it. They say it cannot be intellectually defended. They are on Sessions, behind pulpits and sitting in seminary chairs; and they question the veracity of the word of God. They “walk after their own lusts” as they rely on their own natural minds for the truth; and they scoff at those who would literally believe the word of God.

You know those who assume the air of faintly uncomfortable earnestness one associates with the church relevant. Have you not seen them as they assume this air of superior intelligence and smile upon you with a great benevolent tolerance of your blighted ignorance.

Peter says that they adopt the uniformitarian theory of geological changes when they say “since the fathers fell asleep all thing continue as they were from the beginning of creation”.

How contemporarily this describes those 20th century scoffers who deny the historicity of the Genesis flood and have adopted the twin theories of geological uniformitarianism and biological evolution. Since 1830 these two psuedo-scientific theories have been the principal intellectual basis for the scoffer’ attacks upon the veracity of the word of God. These men have attempted to accomodate scripture to their understanding of these theories.

But Peter reminds us that they are “willingly ignorant” – that is the fact are available but they refuse to face the facts. He says:

“They are willingly ignorant that by the Word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water; whereby the world that was being overflowed with water, perished.”

Peter is reminding us that in the time of Noah, God did destroy his creation on this earth in a global, supernatural catastrophe – the flood.

And Peter then reasons that since we have the facts of this once global destruction by water; we are to believe the prophecy that God will again destroy the creation on this planet in another global, supernatural catastrophe – this time by fire.

“But the heavens and the earth which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men…But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise and the elements shall melt with fervent heat: the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.”

For all who believe God’s word, two sure future events are here revealed, namely:

1. Jesus is coming again to this planet.
2. God will destroy his creation on earth by fire.

Now we don’t know when these events will happen. Jesus says only the Father knows the day. Peter says we are to remember that “one day is with the Lord as a thousand years and a thousand years as one day”. But do we not see signs in our times of the fulfillment of this prophecy so that we could be living in these last days. At any rate these certitudes of “what’s coming” revealed by Peter should provide us with a frame of reference from which to search the scriptures with pure minds for answers in this crisis. They should certainly help us evaluate that which is permanent and that which is transitory, that which we must fight to keep and that which we might be willing to let go.

Now from this frame of reference let us look at the “scoffers” of our day. They are radical, determined ecumenists who have a timetable for the liquidation of the historic witness of the Presbyterian Church in the United States. We need to take note of this timetable if we are to “get set for what’s coming”. We must remember that we are satisfied with the historic doctrine and order of our church; and we are comfortable in subscriptional integrity under the ordination vows we took in support of this doctrine and order.

It is those who are dissatisfied and uncomfortable who want to change. They make the issues for change. We do not. They choose the timetable for presenting these issues. We do not. We are then placed in the position by these proposed liquidators of defending our faith and polity.

It is like a man across the street throwing rocks at your house, breaking your windows and doors. You were satisfied and comfortable in your house; and you would prefer that he not attack it. But once he takes the initiative to destroy you have no alternative but to fight to defend or be destroyed. Such is our position on these issues of liquidation of our church. We don’t want them; we don’t raise them; but for the preservation of our faith and order, we must fight them.

What then is the radical ecumenist timetable for liquidation of our church? The timetable is anchored by a date in 1974 when the General Assemblies of the U.P.U.S.A. Church and P.C.U.S. will meet simultaneously in Louisville, Kentucky. This is to be the great marriage.

But certain other dates must be met if this marriage is to be then consumated. (sic) In 1971, next year, there will come to our General Assembly the following:

1. Restructuring Synods and Presbyteries.
2. Recommendation on Church Property.
3. Draft of new Confession of Faith.
4. Draft of plan for union with UPUSA.

Restructuring will be up for adoption; and if adopted, Synods would be immediately so restructured. Then the new Synods would meet in September or October, 1971, to consider the recommendation to restructure Presbyteries. Remember General Assembly can restructure Synods; but only the Synods can restructure Presbyteries. We must fight this restructuring plan with all our might – first in next years General Assembly; and if we fail there, then in the new Synods.

This restructuring is ecclesiastical, political gerrymandering; and its passage is a necessity if the radical ecumenists are to liquidate our church. One of their leaders was heard to say at the 1970 General Assembly – “If we are to ever have UPUSA union, we must have restructuring”.

We need to keep always in mind that it is the restructuring of Presbyteries that they must have for the political advantage they seek. Restructuring Synods is just the first step toward restructuring Presbyteries. So in “getting set for what’s ahead” we need to fight this restructuring at General Assembly; but we also now need to be preparing and implementing a plan to fight it in the new Synods, in the event it passes the General Assembly.

Even if we loose at the General Assembly, we might succeed in stopping some of the new Synods from restructuring the Presbyteries. Make no mistake about it, this restructuring is the crucial issue before the church; and on its outcome could very well hang our future course.

Church property will be another critical issue in 1971. Since the U.S. Supreme Court decision in the Savannah Churches case, it has been evident that the radical ecumenists would try to get our Book of Church Order amended so as to bind local church property more closely to the Presbytery. No action was taken affecting church property at the 1970 General Assembly; but all overtures relating to church property were referred to the Permanent Judicial Commission which was instructed to study the entire church property issue and make recommendations to the 1971 General Assembly.

It is hoped that no changes will be recommended in view of the fact that we will soon be voting on a plan of union with UPUSA which will drastically alter our doctrine of the ownership of church property. It would seem to be the better wisdom to wait until that union issue is settled before raising any drastic property changes.

Also there is a serious constitutional question as to whether any change in The Book of Church Order could affect the title to church property acquired prior to the change. If, however, the 1971 General Assembly votes to change our doctrine of ownership of church property, it will have to be done by an amendment to the Book of Church Order.

Such an amendment would have to pass the 1971 General Assembly and be sent down to the Presbyteries for advice and consent. If a majority of the Presbyteries voted for the amendment, then it would have to come back to the 1972 General Assembly for approval. Hence no change of church property ownership can be made effective before the 1972 General Assembly. Many feel that if any such drastic change is voted by the 1971 General Assembly, there will be massive withdrawals of churches between the 1971 and 1972 General Assemblies over this church property issue.

In 1971 the Drafts of the new Confession and the plan of union with UPUSA will be sent down to the church for study.

At the 1972 General Assembly it is probable that the new Confession and the plan of union with UPUSA will be presented for their first vote. If both pass, then it is in the timetable of the radical ecumenists to send them down for advice and consent of the Presbyteries in the restructured church between the 1972 and 1973 General Assembly. it will take the affirmative vote of 3/4ths of the Presbyteries to approve either issue. If such an issue gets approval of the required 3/4ths of the Presbyteries, it would be presented to the 1973 General Assembly for final action. If UPUSA union gets this final approval, the marriage would be in Louisville in 1974.

After 1974, COCU will be presented. Of course, if UPUSA union passes, our approval of COCU is almost a certainty. The liquidation would then be total and complete.

How then do we “get set for what’s coming”? Do we have a timetable? Do we just wait until the liquidation is complete and then act? If we wait so long, will we be able to move then? Will we not then be so bound that any movement would be impossible except as individuals? These are legitimate and soul searching questions that are being debated across our church.

In my judgment our timetable should be flexible because we are committed to a principle rather than to a structure. We are committed to the preservation of a corporate witness to the truth as revealed in the Holy Scriptures. This commitment involves us in several possibilities.

There is the possibility of revival within the present structure. We must never discount the power of God; but we should be praying for a fresh outpouring of the Holy Spirit to revive our Church. There is the possibility of peaceful realignment as the existing structure is divided among men of goodwill. A unique method for such realignment was suggested at the 1970 General Assembly in the form of creation of provisional synods and presbyteries for those churches who wanted to remain in the structure for the time being and preserve their right to vote and yet be guaranteed the right to withdraw or unite with some other group and take their property with them.

This possibility is still being explored. There is the possibility that sufficient number of the issues propsed in the timetable of the radical ecumenists will be defeated, and that they will then leave us with our existing structure. And there is the possibility that separation by us will be necessary to preserve our integrity to our said commitment.

There are those who admit that these possibilities exist but feel that the church has gone so far that the only probability is separation and that we should be preparing for it. Among some there is a mood of impatience. Many desperately want to see this realignment in their lifetime. Others are just tired of fighting. Some young ministers see their careers stymied in the present structure and are understandingly anxious to being with new connections and opportunities.

Some laymen are saying that they have just had all they can take and are going to move for peace. There are those who say the church is already apostate when the General Assembly ignores any appeal to scripture as final authority. Some even question but that we are committing sin remaining “unequally yoked with unbelievers”.

These feelings run strong, and they run deep. These see the present church as having passed the point of no return to the faith once delivered to the saints. Many churches find themselves in the position of de facto separation as they cannot and will not support any of the programs or Boards and agencies of our church.

They see a possibility of withdrawal now and being able to take their property with them; but they fear if they wait much longer this possibility will be lost. Involved is church property and church trust funds worth millions. These feel that if the church is restructured after the gerrymandering plan now proposed, the battle is then lost.

They reason that if you then remain until the vote on UPUSA union, your only hope is the possibility of a withdrawal provision in such plan of union. Remembering the past and such withdrawal provision in the RCA union plan, these feel that no workable withdrawal provision will be permitted by the radical ecumenists to be in the final plan.

They suggest that any vague promise now for such a provision is a liberal strategy to lull us into complacency and inaction. These among us insist that the time is upon us to hear, heed and act upon Paul’s injunction to the christians in Corinth when he wrote:

“Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you.”

On the other hand, there are many who do not feel that our cause is lost in the present structure. They remind us that restructuring has not yet passed and that great opposition is developing to it. They don’t believe that our people will pass a church property change which in effect takes away the local church property from the congregation. They see the real probability of defeating UPUSA union (just as in 1954), even in a restructuring church. They sincerely see the probability of preserving this great historic church for the proclamation of the gospel of the Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.

It is true that most who take this attitude are numbered among the “elder statesmen” of the church. As such, their opinions are often weighed against the background of the fact that when body and mind get tired, men are less likely to undertake a daring new venture. But I have lived long enough to know that it is a mistake to discount the voice of experience. It is often the way of wisdom.

These are reminding us that God is not dead and that He is fully able to revive our church. They are reminding us that the standards of our church are still faithful to the Word of God even though many of our members, officials, ministers, etc., are not. They remind us that we still have the right of protest and the right to unfetterly preach the gospel. They are reminding us that we are not congregationalists but presbyterians and that we have taken a vow to be in subjection to our brethren in the Lord. They are suggesting that our vows bind us in subcriptional integrity to a structure so long as that structure in its official standards sets forth true doctrine. (sic)

They are suggesting therefore that no change in structure such as restructuring or ownership of church property is justification for separation; they feel that separation is justified only when doctrine is violated as might be in a new confession or UPUSA union.

They suggest that the issue should be doctrinal rather than structural. Out of their experience they warn that our great adversary, Satan, will not leave us alone even if we separate; but Satan will work in any new structure to confuse and divide. We will not escape the battle with Satan, no matter where we go.

They admit that this course involves practical risks for church property, careers and numbers. But they point to the catalogue of men and women of holy writ who were called by God to walk in faith and disregard the risks. Of course, they are willing to admit that the vow to be in subjection to the brethren is limited, or conditioned upon the doctrine that God alone is Lord of a man’s conscience.

And if the Holy Spirit convicts an individual or a group that it is the will of God that a certain course be followed, that individual or group must obey that conviction even if it violates this vow of subjection. To such an individual or group, we should accord the respect due any man who takes a certain course based on his conviction that it is right.

Then, in the midst of this crisis when no clear course appears, should we sit back and do nothing? God forbid. There are actions we should be taking. I firmly believe that God helps those who help themselves. Hence, I suggest that there are three areas in which we should be taking action; namely, we should be

1. Praying for preservation
2. Fighting against liquidation
3. Preparing for separation

Our first action should be in prayer to almighty God to preserve us and our Church for the proclamation of the gospel of Jesus Christ. At the same time we should be “passing the ammunition” and doing battle to defend our Church against liquidation. This means fight restructuring at every possible point, fight any change in ownership of church property or in our confession of faith, and fight union with the non-confessional bodies of UPUSA and COCU.

At the same time we should be taking action in preparation for separation. It would be utterly foolish to be “caught with our pants down”. In local congregations, presbyteries and the church at large, we need to be preparing plans and structures for separation; so that if this becomes a necessity to keep our commitment to the true gospel it may be accomplished with order, dispatch and decorum.

Now in taking action on these three fronts simultaneously, we preserve our options and keep our timetable flexible. As God unfolds His plan before us in the future, and as we seek earnestly to be in His will as instruments for implementing His plan, I suggest we keep in remembrance these things, to-wit:

1. Our ultimate resource for direction is the written Word of God; hence, we had better know and seek to understand what is written therein.
2. The certitudes of the future that God has revealed ot us in Holy Scripture provide our proper frame of reference. (sic) They point us to that which will last and that which will pass; and they speak of God’s timetable, where one day is as of a thousand years and a thousand years as one day.
3. We are exhorted to earnestly contend for the faith not a form. It is to principles not structures that we are committed. Therefore, any issue that will justify separation must be doctrinal.
4. It is our minds not our emotions that should be stirred; but it is our minds purified by the Holy Spirit.

Therefore, we need to hear and heed the call of Peter to a new and renewed obedience to God:

“Seeing then that these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness…be diligent that ye may be found in him in peace without spot and blameless.”

And Peter calls us at the same time to courageously stand fast for the truth of the gospel:

“Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own steadfastness. But grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. To him be glory both now and for ever. Amen.”

(Editor’s Note. The last quote in italics was not in the text for it was cut off in the manuscript, but to my knowledge this is what the author probably said. Since he was quoting throughout 2 Peter throughout it seemed to me that the best Scripture that would fit in Peter’s writings would be this verse at the close of 2 Peter 3:17-18. What better way to end an address?]