POLITICALLY CORRECT:
"LUKEWARM!"
Continuing Concerned Presbyterians History,
General Assembly Response
Teaching Elder Charles Wilson
In our previous article (CP Newsletter, Jan. 1996), we called
attention to the seven areas in which the newly organized Concerned
Presbyterians called the PCA "be what She said She would be."
These areas of concern were incorporated into a Memorial submitted to the
Twenty-first General Assembly, meeting in Columbia, SC, in June, 1993 in which
the Assembly was asked to reaffirm her commitment to the Biblical Faith and
Practice. As we continue the History of Concerned Presbyterians,
we wish to show how the General Assembly responded to our memorial.
In response to the first of our concerns ("that there are Presbyteries
that accept men as ministers who hold to the possibility of 'new revelation'
from God through prophecy or other means") the Assembly affirmed "its
satisfaction with the Biblical fidelity of the statement of doctrine as found
in its Constitution," while reminding "all Presbyteries of the
responsibility to uphold the provisions to the Constitution of the Presbyterian
Church in America."
With regard to our strong exception to "the amendment to our Book of
Church Order which delegates all judicial cases to a Standing Judicial
Commission, without any right reserved to the Assembly to question or debate
the decisions of this Commission" (Concern #2), the Assembly reminded
presbyters "of the abiding necessity of perfecting the judicial procedures
of the PCA as experience (emphasis added, Editor) leads the
church to recognize more appropriate means to apply Biblical principle."
In answer to our third concern that "the PCA was established as a
'strict subscription' Old School Presbyterian Church" and our concern
about apparent laxity of practice on the part of Presbyteries and Sessions on
this matter, the Assembly affirmed "its confidence in the subscription
vows as sufficient to protect the doctrinal fidelity of the offices of the
church."
To the charge "that increasingly our Assembly Committees act as Boards,
independent of the Assembly" (Concern #4), the Assembly responded by
"gladly" reminding us of our "fundamental 'Principles of
Organization.'"
Concern number five (about "the efforts to change the Church polity, by
denying the ecclesiastical authority that the higher courts have over the lower
courts"), was answered with the statement "that 'the Bible and the
Bible alone' is the authority for the principles of our structures."
Responding to concern number six (an increasing presence in the PCA of
"a movement that would have the Sessions delegate their responsibilities
and authority . . . to committees made up of people from the
congregation"), the Assembly commended to all presbyters "the
responsibility to uphold the provisions of the Book of Church Order."
And, to the Memorial's stand against "the disregard for the regulative
principle of worship," which leads to "all sorts of entertainment,
including skits, dancing and 'strange fire' in worship services" (Concern
#7), the Assembly responded by stating "the principle that practices in
worship must be warranted by Scripture does not, of itself, determine what
practices are so warranted."
At first glance, it may appear that the General Assembly gave a clear,
positive response to Concerned Presbyterians. In reality, the
Assembly totally ignored our request to "take steps in moving the PCA back
toward what we declared we would do when we first organized." Also ignored
was our request "to give this call a hearing, and move toward true
reconciliation of the parties in the Church by acting in integrity toward the
declaration made by the founders of this Church." The Assembly gave a
"politically correct," neutral response which said and did nothing.
The implication was that the Assembly did not need to do anything since our
Constitution already speaks to these matters.
The Assembly's response immediately brings to mind two dangers.
The first is that this "politically correct" sort of answer will
become a pattern to answer all overtures to reaffirm a biblical position. In
fact, this same approach may be seen in the Twenty-third Assembly's response to
an overture from the Reverend Mr. Paul Alexander. This overture asked the
Assembly to "urge keeping Sunday Evening services" in our churches.
The Assembly did not encourage or discourage the PCA to keep the Sabbath holy.
It simply said that "our standards adequately address the emphasis that
worship should receive on the Lord's Day." There is reason for great
concern when requests for specific application of the teachings of our
standards are answered by simple references to the standards, with the
implication that the standards are open to virtually any interpretation that
one wants to make of them.
The second danger is that we as a Church may have moved from being
"hot" to "lukewarm" in its enthusiasm for the Biblical
Faith and Order. In Revelation 3:15-18 (KJV), we read:
I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would
thou wert cold or hot. So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor
hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth. Because thou sayest, I am rich and
increased with goods, and have heed of nothing; and knowest not that thou art
wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked: I counsel thee to buy
of me gold tried in the fire, that thou mayest be rich; and white raiment, that
thou mayest be clothed, and that the shame of thy nakedness do not appear; and
anoint thine eyes with eye-salve, that thou mayest see.
We all need constantly to examine ourselves to see if we are being faithful
and obedient to God's Word as taught and applied by our standards. We need to
pray that we, as individuals, and as a denomination, may not become
"politically correct" to the point of being spiritually
"lukewarm."
|
