1978. COMPLAINT AGAINST AN ACTION OF SOUTHERN PRESBYTERY. Minutes of the 156th General Synod of the Reformed Presbyterian Church Evangelical Synod. June 16-22. pgs. 158-159
COMMUNICATION #4. COMPLAINT AGAINST AN ACTION OF SOUTHERN PRESBYTERY
We the undersigned respectfully petition the 156th Synod of the RPCES to hear this complaint against an action of the Southern Presbytery in its meeting of May 18-19, 1978, in New Orleans, La. We likewise request a review of the action and an authoritative determination of the issues and principles involved.
The actions we protest consist in a rejection of a committee report which said that Elder DubIe's concern over official cooperation between the session of the Lookout Mountain RPCES and the session of the neighboring PCUS session was well founded, and the adoption of a resolution encouraging such cooperation, which the undersigned view as a compromise with unbelief. This cooperation consists in the two sessions' officially sponsoring and conducting a joint Vacation Bible School this summer.
Since compromise with liberal denominations has, throughout our past denominational history, been deplored and forbidden; since indeed this is the reason for our separate existence as a denomination; since therefore the matter at hand involves principles that cover many other possible situations and is not of purely local concern; we believe that the least Synod can do is to establish a committee to review all the pertinent details, facts, and arguments. It is proper to place before Synod a few of the reasons for considering the whole matter as a very serious question of the purity of the church and the Biblically denounced principle, to wit, "Let us do evil that good may come." First, we believe that the PCUS is an unbelieving denomination, that many of its actions in the past 25 years have been anti-christian, that it is currently engaged in altering its ordination vows, and that its departure from the Scripture and the Westminster Standards will continue and accelerate. We do not consider it necessary to include the evidence in this document. A committee of Synod can read the Presbyterian Journal's account over many years and consult other sources.
Second, it has been argued in Presbytery that separation from the PCUS body on Lookout Mountain would be so-called "second degree" separation, and therefore not required by considerations of purity. This argument, we believe, is not well founded. The cooperation of the RPCES session and the PCUS session is a direct cooperation between the courts of two denominations. There are no intermediaries or more tenuous relationships in this case. The two ecclesiastical judicatories are in direct contact and they together will control the instruction of the pupils in the school.
Third, it was argued in Presbytery that the Form of Government permits cooperation between one of our congregations and a particular congregation of a liberal denomination if the particular congregation is not itself apostate. The wording of Chapter IV, Section 9, paragraph e is, "Particular churches shall not be prevented from participation in such activities ... of particular churches free from apostasy ... " The undersigned regard this interpretation of the Form of Government as mistaken because it treats a particular Presbyterian church as if it were a congregational body. One might as well argue that though the Roman church is apostate, the local S1. Peter's might be evangelical and merit cooperation.
Fourth, arguments in Presbytery contended that such cooperation, which we believe to be compromise with unbelief, would lead the PCUS congregation to withdraw from the corrupt denomination. On the contrary, we believe it would produce the impression that the PCUS is not so bad after all. We note as a fact that a certain number of Covenant College students attend PCUS congregations rather than our RPCES congregation and that others of the Covenant community above the rank of student do so too. This further cooperation and compromise would tend, we hold, to further confusing the public and leading them astray. But these doubtful predictions are not the main point. Paul's principle of becoming all things to all men must not be interpreted so as to permit us to become bank robbers or alcoholics in order to win bank robbers or alcoholics. We are bound by the law of God, not by pragmatic guesses. If the apostle tells individual Christians to be first pure, then afterward peaceable, how much more must the courts of the church be first pure rather than pragmatic. We must utterly reject the pragmatic principle of "Let us do evil that good may come." And the signers of this complaint hold that compromise with unbelief is evil. We also hold that the PCUS is a denomination whose actions over the past 25 years have demonstrated opposition to the truth of God's Word.
For these reasons we respectfully urge Synod to appoint the committee desired.
Rev. Paul Alexander
Dr. Gordon H. Clark
E. Allen Dubie
COMMUNICATION #4. COMPLAINT AGAINST AN ACTION OF SOUTHERN PRESBYTERY
We the undersigned respectfully petition the 156th Synod of the RPCES to hear this complaint against an action of the Southern Presbytery in its meeting of May 18-19, 1978, in New Orleans, La. We likewise request a review of the action and an authoritative determination of the issues and principles involved.
The actions we protest consist in a rejection of a committee report which said that Elder DubIe's concern over official cooperation between the session of the Lookout Mountain RPCES and the session of the neighboring PCUS session was well founded, and the adoption of a resolution encouraging such cooperation, which the undersigned view as a compromise with unbelief. This cooperation consists in the two sessions' officially sponsoring and conducting a joint Vacation Bible School this summer.
Since compromise with liberal denominations has, throughout our past denominational history, been deplored and forbidden; since indeed this is the reason for our separate existence as a denomination; since therefore the matter at hand involves principles that cover many other possible situations and is not of purely local concern; we believe that the least Synod can do is to establish a committee to review all the pertinent details, facts, and arguments. It is proper to place before Synod a few of the reasons for considering the whole matter as a very serious question of the purity of the church and the Biblically denounced principle, to wit, "Let us do evil that good may come." First, we believe that the PCUS is an unbelieving denomination, that many of its actions in the past 25 years have been anti-christian, that it is currently engaged in altering its ordination vows, and that its departure from the Scripture and the Westminster Standards will continue and accelerate. We do not consider it necessary to include the evidence in this document. A committee of Synod can read the Presbyterian Journal's account over many years and consult other sources.
Second, it has been argued in Presbytery that separation from the PCUS body on Lookout Mountain would be so-called "second degree" separation, and therefore not required by considerations of purity. This argument, we believe, is not well founded. The cooperation of the RPCES session and the PCUS session is a direct cooperation between the courts of two denominations. There are no intermediaries or more tenuous relationships in this case. The two ecclesiastical judicatories are in direct contact and they together will control the instruction of the pupils in the school.
Third, it was argued in Presbytery that the Form of Government permits cooperation between one of our congregations and a particular congregation of a liberal denomination if the particular congregation is not itself apostate. The wording of Chapter IV, Section 9, paragraph e is, "Particular churches shall not be prevented from participation in such activities ... of particular churches free from apostasy ... " The undersigned regard this interpretation of the Form of Government as mistaken because it treats a particular Presbyterian church as if it were a congregational body. One might as well argue that though the Roman church is apostate, the local S1. Peter's might be evangelical and merit cooperation.
Fourth, arguments in Presbytery contended that such cooperation, which we believe to be compromise with unbelief, would lead the PCUS congregation to withdraw from the corrupt denomination. On the contrary, we believe it would produce the impression that the PCUS is not so bad after all. We note as a fact that a certain number of Covenant College students attend PCUS congregations rather than our RPCES congregation and that others of the Covenant community above the rank of student do so too. This further cooperation and compromise would tend, we hold, to further confusing the public and leading them astray. But these doubtful predictions are not the main point. Paul's principle of becoming all things to all men must not be interpreted so as to permit us to become bank robbers or alcoholics in order to win bank robbers or alcoholics. We are bound by the law of God, not by pragmatic guesses. If the apostle tells individual Christians to be first pure, then afterward peaceable, how much more must the courts of the church be first pure rather than pragmatic. We must utterly reject the pragmatic principle of "Let us do evil that good may come." And the signers of this complaint hold that compromise with unbelief is evil. We also hold that the PCUS is a denomination whose actions over the past 25 years have demonstrated opposition to the truth of God's Word.
For these reasons we respectfully urge Synod to appoint the committee desired.
Rev. Paul Alexander
Dr. Gordon H. Clark
E. Allen Dubie
No comments:
Post a Comment