It has been said that the divisions in the Presbyterian Church, U.S. have been brought on simply because of a difference of emphasis. One side emphasizes the social aspect of the Gospel, and the other side emphasizes the individual aspect, we are told; and for the Gospel to be complete, both sides are needed. Therefore, they say, let us throw down our arms and get together. But that is not the correct evaluation of the situation in the Presbyterian Church, U. S. I wish it were.

The problem is not one of emphasis but of diametrically opposed systems of doctrine – - one leading to the Living Christ of the Scriptures, the other leading away from Him. The differences among us are so deep that they are Irreconcilable, as they stand now, unless one side changes or compromises their present convictions. …

The old, historic and biblical view of the Bible has left our seminaries, our pulpits, and our colleges, to a large degree. In exchange for it we hear such things as: “The Bible becomes the Word of God to me as God sees fit, but no book lying on a table can be called the Word of God,” or “The Bible contains the Word of God mixed with the erring opinions of men,” or “The Bible contains the infallible Word of God clothed in the fallible words of men.”

A southern Presbyterian seminary professor said that he did not care what the Bible said, he wanted to know what God said. Another one said that there were parts of the Old Testament, such as the story of Jericho, which should not be in the Bible. As the result of the prevalent view, I was taught in seminary that when studying Genesis as an historical document, the first eleven chapters were not to be considered at all, and chapters twelve through fifty, as well at the rest of the Old Testament, were to be read with a critical eye. I was taught in seminary that Moses was not the author of the first five books of the Bible, although the bulk of the Bible and Jesus Christ Himself affirm that he was. In other words, Jesus cannot always be relied upon. He too can be mistaken, for He was wrong in His view of the Old Testament.

I was taught in seminary that much of the prophecy of the Old Testament such as Isaiah and Daniel is not prophecy at all, but is texts written in prophetic form after the events took place about which they were to prophesy. That is basic dishonesty.

I was taught in seminary that Paul misinterpreted the Old Testament at some points in his Epistles, thus making his teaching unreliable.

In other words, enough has been said to see that, in our seminaries and pulpits, the Bible is regarded as a book which cannot be relied upon, but which needs human correction, clarification, and supplementation. These opinions that: 1) the Bible becomes the Word of God; 2) the Bible contains the Word of God mixed with human opinions; and 3) the Bible is the infallible Word in fallible human words, make Truth purely subjective. What sounds good to me is truth from God, regardless of how it sounds to you, they say. God could contradict Himself, in that case, in speaking to each of us, and if so we could be sure of nothing we held as being Truth. We would have nothing of which to give testimony.

Again, if the Bible contains the Word of God mixed with human opinion, and if we can distinguish it from error, we would be placing our minds in such an exalted position that papal infallibility would be child’s play.

And if it is true that the Word is always clothed in fallible words, like a mask, then we could never get behind the mask and know the one Living GOD.

Rev. Morecraft goes on to address how this view of Scripture is then applied by the Neo-Orthodox to the doctrine of the atonement:

The Doctrine of the Atonement, if a man’s theology is to have any respect at all, must be clear-cut, certain and rigidly adherent to the truths of Scripture, going as far as they go, and stopping where they stop.

Two generations ago, our seminaries unashamedly taught the following about the Death of Jesus Christ: It was space-time event in history, in which the Son of God turned away the wrath and satisfied the justice of an angry GOD. The Son willingly gave Himself to die because of the Father’s love for sinners. This satisfaction was made by Jesus being put to death as a substitute in the place of many sinners, taking upon Himself the punishment and hell which our sins deserve and which God’s justice required.

If there is any doctrine which enrages Neo-Orthodoxy and which sets its teeth on edge, it is this doctrine which we have just mentioned, called in the Bible—Propitiation. One Presbyterian seminary professor said that propitiation should never be in any translation of the Bible anywhere.

Another seminary professor said without further explanation, “A cross-centered theology is a bad theology.” In Neo-Orthodoxy the Atonement could mean several things: 1) It was the releasing of Christ’s life in which mankind participates; 2) By it Christ lifted the sins of humanity by identification with those sins and overwhelmingly abolishing those sins by His own Deity; 3) In it the Electing God becomes the Elected Man (i.e., in Christ all men are elected), and bearing the rejection of God for the world, Christ becomes the only Rejected Man; 4) In it, God, out of His almighty power, simply says, “I forgive everybody,” with no regard to His Justice and Holiness. If God did this, we surely would stand in respect of His power, but we could never trust His love.

At the heart of Neo-Orthodoxy’s view of the Atonement lies one of three things: 1) repudiation of the supreme importance of the Cross; 2) an implicit universalism saying that all humanity will be saved; 3) the sovereignty
of man, who is able to thwart God’s plan, ruin His purposes and disavow His election.

The Resurrection of Jesus Christ, as well as lesser biblical miracles, in the minds of many today are seen as being performed not in verifiable human history, which can be given attestation, but in the realm of faith. In other words, if you had been there whenJesus fed the Five Thousand with bread and fish, you would have gone home hungry.

A Presbyterian seminary professor said that it did not matter to him whether or not Jesus arose from the grave, he would still be a Christian. That sounds noble, but what if Jesus Christ is still in the grave today?” He did not genuinely arise from the grave in the same body In which He suffered, we have nothing. The Cross through the Open Tomb gives the Christian religion its power and uniqueness.

Rev. Morecraft concludes his address with a call to stand for the truth even if that means facing persecution and ridicule:

In conclusion, I pray that it can be seen that some things are not negotiable. There are some things which we cannot compromise or give up, even at the cost of peace. For, to compromise in the least degree on what the Bible claims for itself–total and unconditional authority in everything it says; or to compromise at all on what Christ did for us in accomplishing our salvation-satisfied an angry God, is to deny Christ, betray Christianity, and stand with the antichrist.

There is coming a time and now is, when you and I as Bible-believing Presbyterians must publicly and boldly take a stand in the face of persecution, ridicule and mockery, and say with Martin Luther so long ago, “Here I stand, I can do no other, God help me. Amen.”

1. Outside the article of justification we cannot sufficiently praise and magnify these works which are commanded by God. For who can sufficiently commend and set forth the profit and fruit of only one work which a Christian does through faith and in faith? Indeed, it is more precious than heaven or earth.
2. We teach that to reconcile God, to make righteous, to blot out sin, is so high and great and glorious a work that alone Christ, the Son of God could do it and that this is indeed such a pure, special, peculiar work of the one true God and His grace that our works are nothing and can do nothing. But that good works should be nothing or be worth only a penny, who ever heard of such a thing, or who could teach such a thing except the lying mouth of the devil? I would not give up one of my sermons, not one of my lectures, not one of my treatises, not one of my Lord’s Prayers, nay, whatever small work I have ever done or am doing, for all the riches of the world (Cited in Francis Pieper, Christian Dogmatics (Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1953), 3:59–60

“Does BioLogos formally take a particular stance on marriage as discussed in today’s piece, for example? The answer, of course, is no.” — Darrel Falk, President of BioLogos

Over the past few weeks, we have been explaining that what we hear the Biologos movement promoting is a view that is dogmatic on evolution and flexible on everything else. Evolution seems to be the real fundamental pillar of all their work.

Over the last week, so-called gay marriage has been in the news because of President Barack Obama’s announcement that he is in support of re-defining the institution of marriage. Much of the biblical case for the definition of marriage as one man and one woman in covenant together rests on a literal interpretation of the early chapters of Genesis.

Here are a few important questions for the BioLogos movement: if we do not take the early chapters of Genesis literally, then what happens to the case for marriage? What does theistic evolution do to the concept of marriage? If we begin to give into the culture in its demand that we adopt evolution, will we given in when the culture asks to adopt gay marriage?

Consequently, I thought I would research the most prominent organization that is promoting evolution among evangelicals, BioLogos, to see what they said on this issue. In an article entitled, “Genesis Two Rewrites,” Pastor Stephen Rodeheaver writes the following:

Today we face all kinds of Genesis 2 re-writes as humanity attempts to re-determine good and evil. Whether in the form of highly sexualized commercials or same-sex marriage legislation or a husband’s right to abuse his own wife or a men-are-evil-and-useless sentiment, we are individually and collectively at work constructing deadly, disordered narratives that seem as harmless as that appealing fruit.

This is a good statement. The problem is that the President of BioLogos Darrel Falk added the following editorial comment at the top of this article:

Does BioLogos formally take a particular stance on marriage as discussed in today’s piece, for example? The answer, of course, is no.

The “stance on marriage” in the article is opposition to same-sex marriage. President Falk says that BioLogos takes no position on that issue.

Karl Giberson directs the science and religion program at Gordon College and is listed as a leading figure in the BioLogos movement on BioLogos’ web site. In an article in the New York Times, he wrote:

Scholars like Dr. [Francis] Collins and Mr. Noll, and publications like Books & Culture, Sojourners and The Christian Century, offer an alternative to the self-anointed leaders. They recognize that the Bible does not condemn evolution and says next to nothing about gay marriage. They understand that Christian theology can incorporate Darwin’s insights and flourish in a pluralistic society.

According to Dr. Giberson, the Bible says “next to nothing” about gay marriage.

Giberson has sounded the same note elsewhere (see also this article). In an interview on NPR, Giberson responded this way to the question of a caller:

CONAN [the host]: We’re talking with Karl Giberson, co-author of “The Anointed: Evangelical Truth in a Secular Age” with Randall J. Stephens. And they are also the authors of an op-ed that appeared in The New York Times, “The Evangelical Rejection of Reason.” 800-989-8255. Email: talk@npr.org. Aaron’s on the line, Aaron calling us from Lynchburg in Virginia.

AARON: Yes, Neal. Thank you for taking my call.

CONAN: Go ahead, please.

AARON: Yes. You know, I – having come through four years at an evangelical university, growing up in what many would call the evangelical subculture, I – and even now pursuing a graduate degree and working for an evangelical university, I find that there is – there are certain things that will be certain hot-button issues. I mean, I think there is even – as your guest was stating earlier – in these evangelical universities, there are these areas where they are looking into – looking at scientific reason, looking at research and data and not just going off of tradition.

And I think, really, what the issue comes from is not necessarily the true orthodoxy of the Christian faith that they hold, but I think more of these extra-scriptural moralities and even hot-button points, that there can be no compromise on, that I think it’s almost something to where the foundation of one’s faith, when it is seen as something that is reduced down to into talking points than when – when one of those talking points is challenged, when that’s the only foundation that you have, then you really can’t move on past that.

GIBERSON: Yes. There’s a very real sense in which there are hot-button items, but, unfortunately, these hot-button items, I think, have been manipulated by leaders looking to kind of build coalitions. They’re not always, like, authentic biblical or traditionally Christian concerns. And, I mean, gay marriage would be a good example. I mean, there’s just a handful of proof text scattered throughout the Bible about homosexuality. Jesus said absolutely nothing about it.

And yet, somehow, that’s on the front burner of, as sort of the central issue that Christian leaders like James Dobson want us to worry about. So I think there’s a manipulation of the, sort of, the evangelical perception of where society is going, where the threats are that’s behind some of that. (emphasis added)

Because of their hermeneutic, it seems that those who hold to the BioLogos view will be all over the map on this issue. Even those who want to oppose so-called gay marriage will have trouble doing so based on the hermeneutic they have adopted.

Tim Keller recently wrestled with this issue in an article on The Gospel Coalition. One of the major challenges for Christianity in America, according to a book by Ross Douthat entitled Bad Religion is the “political polarization that has sucked churches into its vortex.” Douthat suggests that our churches may be able to welcome rootless postmoderns, but that the church “would have to equip all its members to be culturally engaged through vocation and civic involvement without identifying corporately with one political party.”

Now, as I said, I have sympathy with such a view. We do not want to make some political views the basis of membership, and we certainly do not want the evangelical church to simply be an instrument of a political party. However, I do wonder if it is really possible for us to avoid being associated with one political party.

Here’s why. At the middle of the past century, you would have found evangelicals on both sides of the political aisle. My grandfather was a Wesleyan Pastor in Kentucky and a long-time and prominent member of the Democratic party. He is no longer. Most of the evangelicals in the South are no longer part of the Democratic party (except for some African-American evangelicals). What changed? In a recent discussion with a Mississippian, I was reminded that it was one issue in particular that pushed evangelicals into the Republican party: abortion. One party is pro-abortion. The other part is pro-life. Christians can debate on a lot of issues concerning the economy, health care, taxes, and debt, but they do stand against the murder of these innocent children. If there was ever an issue in which justice was involved, it would be in the defense of these innocent children from capital punishment. This is unavoidably a politically polarizing issue.

As of this past week, we have another issue that polarizes us and puts evangelical Christians on one side of the political aisle: defense of the God-ordained institution of marriage. If we take the Bible seriously and Genesis 2 literally, then marriage is the very foundation of society established by God. Even most pagan societies have recognized this point to one degree or another. Marriage and family life is defended in the strongest way by the Bible from beginning to end. It not only rejects the false definition of marriage that would make it between a man and man or a woman and a woman, but it calls homosexuality a sin.

Now we have the head of the Democratic party calling for the jettisoning of marriage as we know it and replacing it with an arbitrary, unbiblical, and unnatural definition in order to pander to one political group. This view will probably be added to the Democratic party’s platform.

So, here’s the problem. Virtually anything the church now says on marriage will be seen as political. The very explanation of marriage has become a polarizing issue that places those who defend the biblical view on one side of the political aisle.

That does not mean that we have to advocate for a political party. I am just offering the observation that if we simply teach what the Bible says on sexuality and marriage, we will appear political in the eyes of the world. I don’t see any other way to avoid this impression outside of compromise on the biblical teaching. Do you?

Here is an excerpt from the first newsletter originally published in May 1970:

Advice to Merger Leaders: Put Doctrine First

(NOTE: Presbyterian Churchmen United was invited by the Joint Committee of 24 negotiating union between the Presbyterian Church US and the United Presbyterian Church USA to make a presentation at its Jan. 26 meeting at Alexandria, Va. Following is the text of Executive Secretary John E. Richards’ prepared statement.) . . .

In the beginning let me say that we are sensitively aware of certain things that may be relevant to your task as a committee on Church union. First, we are probably living in the twilight era of organizational ecumenism. While spiritual ecumenism will always continue, as our Lord calls people of all ages into one fellowship in Him, the merging of various branches of the visible church as a movement has passed its prime. The spirit of this age seems rather to divide groups into those of more particular beliefs rather than to unite groups under some vague generalities. Even in the Roman Church this change is evident, and it may become evident in a complete reshuffling of the Protestant scene.

Second, we are aware that liberal, neo-orthodox and contemporary theology as taught by most of the larger theological schools of our day have failed to capture the souls of men and have seriously depleted the pulpits of the Biblical message of salvation, with the inevitable result that local churches and pastors turn their interest to new or more satisfying sources of ministerial training. These sources may not be in either of our communions.

Third, we are aware of what seems to be the dying struggle of the social gospel. While much good has been done and will be done for the social order by good men, those who try to reform society and the body politic without Christ are soon strangled by the company they keep. To identify Christian effort with civil disobedience, racketeering, or Marxism means another defeat for Christianity.

Fourth, we are aware of the effort of some to destroy the institutional Church. With some this was an honest effort to renew the Church by driving it into the streets. The effort was abortive, for the voice of the Church is more lost in the street than it was in the pulpit. It is drowned out by secular voices who selfishly seek more of the world’s material, more of its political power, more of its recognition.

Fifth, we are aware of a deep and sincere reaction from the pew and the local churches against centralized power from above and programs sent down to the individual from above. While there still abides a true respect for God, the layman has little respect for denominational boards or agencies that seek to play God.

In this second excerpt, he goes on to give advice to the PC(US) on what issues should be considered in any merger between the Southern and Northern Presbyterian churches:

In the dark shadows of the awareness which I have at least partially described, the conservative feels for a sure footing upon which he may tread; he reaches out in faith to that which has been conserved through the ages he searches his soul to learn how God would have him move forward into the future. What he finds is both the anchor from the past and the dynamic of the future. So firmly does he believe these things that he is willing to recommend them to you to be included in any plan of union which you might decide to recommend.

First, let the ordaining principles for officers in the Church be holy vows taken by the officer to Almighty God concerning those things that he believes and agrees to uphold, so that, not only are the tenets of faith for his instruction and guidance, but are the expression of his covenant with the Lord of life made in solemn worship to Him. Only thus can brethren be truly one in His service.

Second, let all officers accept the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments as the Word of God written, the only infallible rule of faith and practice. The Bible, which is self-attesting, is God’s revelation to man. Each part is to be understood and interpreted by other Scripture and none of it is to be changed to suit the pleasures of men nor the peculiarities of a particular age.

Third, in keeping with our mutual heritage, let any plan of union declare our allegiance to the Reformed theology, relinquishing to the trash heap the idea that such theology should be defined as “a faith that is always reforming itself.” Christ, who is Head and Lord of the Church, is the only one who can reform His church. This He does by His Word and Spirit. Our allegiance to the teachings of the Bible as enunciated by John Calvin and the Westminster divines is a noble body of truth in which the covenanter places himself under the authority of Christ as He speaks to us in His Word.

Fourth, let any plan of union dissolve any hint of universalism and point us to Christ who is necessary to save men from hell and give them eternal life. “The only redeemer of God’s elect is the Lord Jesus Christ, who being the eternal son of God, became man, and so was, and continueth to be, God and man, in two distinct natures, and one person, forever.”

Fifth, let the plan state with crystal clarity that the primary mission of the Church is the redemption and nurture of souls in accordance with the great commission of our Lord. Such a mission lays upon us in compelling terms the urgency of New Testament evangelism. As converts are nurtured and grow in Grace they are to produce fruits of the spirit in compassion, service, generosity, and unselfishness. As men are reconciled to God in Christ they are equipped to become reconciled to each other.

Sixth, we would recommend the Westminster Confession of Faith and the Westminster Larger and Shorter Catechisms as the single Biblical creed sufficient in itself as an admirable summary of the Scripture and expression of our Faith. It carries in it the spirit of permanence. The Confession of Faith has stood in its essential integrity for 350 years because it is a faithful interpretation of the Word of God. It is not founded upon, nor should it be changed to meet, the tempo of any particular generation.

Seventh, to remove the dangerous threat of clerical ism, let the plan reemphasize the Presbyterian principle of the parity of the eldership. The church desperately needs to hear the voice and feel the influence of the laity. God has called by His Spirit every man that comes to him in faith. If we close our ears to the pew we will have shut ourselves off from one of the greatest channels through which God communicates to the Church.

a denomination committed to a broadly Reformed theological position, steering clear of both a formless evangelicalism with sketchy theological commitments and a narrow sectarianism that could consume our energies building a theological fortress . . .

Is this an accurate summation of the PCA’s original vision?

For those who want to research the Original Vision of the PCA, I would highly recommend a new resource made available by the PCA Historical Center. There were four organizations that were instrumental in forming the PCA. The organization for conservative pastors was called Presbyterian Churchmen United. You can read their newsletters here.

Not surprisingly, such a group was asked many questions. In order to answer them, they wrote “A Declaration of Commitment” that was first published on October 4th, 1969. You can read it on page 4 of this newsletter. Note the 4th statement in particular:

That for the implementation of the above principles, in obedience to our ordination vows, we must strive to preserve a confessional Church, thoroughly Reformed and Presbyterian. Thus our support of or opposition to any proposed union will be determined by these considerations. (emphasis added)

Thus, to be more historically accurate, we could probably say that the denomination was supposed to be “thoroughly Reformed” not “broadly Reformed.” “Broadly reformed” may be an original revision rather than the original vision.

Below is the original “Declaration of Commitment” with the names of those who signed it including MTW Coordinator Paul Kooistra.

A Declaration of Commitment

To the membership of the Presbyterian Church, U.S., in the light of the questions and concerns being expressed in the Church as to the nature of our faith and order, I(we), the undersigned, do solemnly declare my(our) conviction:

-That the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ turns men from darkness to light and from the power of Satan to God. By coming to faith in Him alone is there genuine reconciliation between man and God and man and man.

-That the Holy Scriptures are the infallible Word of God, and that these Scriptures commit the Church to a mission whose primary end is the salvation and nurture of souls.

-That Christian faith must bear fruit if it is to remain virile. These fruits vary from believer to believer. But common to them all are evidences of love, concern, and neighborliness, towards all races of men without partiality and without prejudice, especially to the poor, the oppressed, and the disadvantaged. The man of faith views all men as neighbors and himself as debtor, for Christ’s sake.

-That for the implementation of the above principles, in obedience to our ordination vows, we must strive to preserve a confessional Church, thoroughly Reformed and Presbyterian. Thus our support of or opposition to any proposed union will be determined by these considerations.

-That being fully committed by our ordination vows to the system of doctrine set forth in the Westminster Confession of Faith and Catechisms, we must oppose all efforts to change in substance or otherwise debase our historic doctrinal commitment.

-That we are, in the same context, by vow committed to historic Presbyterian polity with its representative system and its parity among teaching and ruling elders. Thus, we are forced to oppose the effort to take our Church into the massive organization envisioned by COCU.

-That, should the basic theology or polity of the Church be altered or diluted, we shall be prepared to take such actions as may be necessary to fulfill the obligations imposed by our ordination vows to maintain our Presbyterian faith.

Signature ___________________________________

HERE WE STAND

By January of 1973 over 600 men had signed the declaration at which point it was still circulating. Some of those signers are listed below:

O. Chauncey Acrey
James W. Allen
O. M. Anderson
Walter D. Arnold
Henry M. Bailey
James B. Billman
Taylor O. Bird
J. A. Booth
George C. Bowman
Ralph A. Brown
Paul K. Buckles
Al S. Burdette
Robert Ernest Burnett
Charles G. Burton
Robert H. Camenisch
E. H. Carleton
Robert A. Clark
John R. Clarke
Willis Cornelius
Cecil V. Dalton
Peter DeRuiter
R. M. Dickson
A. T. Dyal
Charles W. Echols, Sr.
C. G. Forthman
L. K. Foster
Paul Bucher Fowler
Taft A. Franklin
Charles R. Galbraith
James Marion Gilbert
Curtis C. Goodson
Vance A. Gordon
Donald M. Green
J. C. Grier
B. David Gullett
Thomas L. Harnesberger
James Douglas Heck
Gerald A. Heersma
James C. Hicks, Jr.
H. Keith Hill
Fred W. Hoffman
Doyle Hulse
George H. Hurst
James Herbert Hurst
Harry K. Jeanneret
A. Emerson Johnson II
Albert Sidney Johnson
William R. Johnson
Laurie Voltz Jones, Jr.
Robert O. Kantner
A. H. Key
Paul D. Kooistra
Robert Koren
Thomas M. Lemly
Thomas Dwight Linton
Samuel Lipsey
Samuel T. Logan, Jr.
Richard L. Love
John A. Luddy
Robert M. Lytton
Jacob S. MacKorell, Jr.
James O. Maner
John J. Martin
D. A. Meeks
J. M. Moore
James L. Moss
Cameron D. L. Mosser
W. F. McElroy, Sr.
James L. McGirt
Charles E. McGowan
Charles H. McLean
James W. McNutt
W. L. Newman
Louis G. Novak
Lannie Parnell
Walser Penland
Lyle W. Peterson
Wythe M. Peyton, Jr.
William S. Porter
Ira H. Rawles
E. W. Reid
D. Edward Renegar
William E. Riddle, Jr.
Ernest T. Severs
W. Hiram Sharpe
Weldon W. Shows
Stephen J. Sloop
Frank E. Smith
W. Ted Smith, Sr.
William S. Smith
Frank Edward Soules
Ernest L. Stoffel
Bert H. Styles
L. Sherwood Taylor
T. Reichardt Taylor
Calvin C. Thielman
Frederic D. Thompson, Jr.
Vincent O. Titterud
Harry Samuel Topham
Robert Lee Turner
John G. Viser
DeForest Wade
James R. Wagner
Howell Cobb Ware
T. Barton West
T. J. Wharton
A. W. Whitaker, Jr.
Roy F. Whitley
Bruce H. Wideman
Linwood G. Wilkes
Glenn M. Willard
Bill Williams
Carl W. Wilson
Maynard C. Woltz
Donald E. Wood
J. R. Woods
Charles W. Worth
Frank R. Young
Troy L. Young
Charles R. Bailey
William H. Bell, Jr.
John Richard de Witt
Charles B. Evans, III
Richard R. Harris
John D. Holmes
Robert A. Johnson
Edward J. Knox
John Wade Long, Jr.
Wallace W. Marshall
John S. McNicoll
John W. Stodghill
James E. Watson
William K. Wymond
D. A. Dunkerley
Basil P. Albert
Robert G. Balnicky
Bruce Beardsley
H. L. Broadwater, Jr.
Paul J. Coblentz
Billy G. Combs
John W. Dozier
G. A. Fleece
Iain Inglis
William W. Maynor
A. C. Summers

Please make checks payable to and mail to (please include project # in memo line):
Mission to the World. P.O. Box 116284. Atlanta, GA 30368-6284 (donations address)

The Mission to the World Project # is 98310. You can also contact them here for more information.

Here is more information on MTW’s PCA Original Vision Network network from a newsletter article sent out by TE Larry Hoop:

As I indicated in the February “Pastor’s Desk” column, my “retirement” (or, as Dr. Charles McGowan would say, “redeployment”) plans call for me to undertake a new challenge placed before me by Dr. Paul Kooistra, Coordinator of the PCA’s foreign mission agency, Mission to the World. Since my initial acceptance of this challenge, we have refined our vision for this endeavor. We are calling it the Original Vision Network because it is an attempt to rally our denomination around its original vision. We have prepared a description of the Original Vision Network which I have reproduced below. One final note: in the last paragraph of the description, I mention the need of sponsors. I am looking for people who will pray for my work at least weekly, and/or provide financial support. I need to raise $25,000 for the Network to be fully funded. Of course, Colfax Center should be your first priority in giving, but if you are able and would be so led, I’d appreciate your help. I have reproduced a sponsor card below, which you could mail to me. I will also place a quantity of the sponsor cards on the literature table in the fellowship hall with a box in which you may deposit them. — Pastor Hoop

The torch is being passed. The generation that founded the PCA is passing from the scene and as a result we are at a crossroads. At this key moment in our denomination’s history it is vital that we renew our commitment to the original vision our founders established nearly 40 years ago. This vision is embodied in our long-time motto: “Loyal to Scripture, Faithful to the Reformed Faith, Obedient to the Great Commission.” Our founders envisioned:

• a denomination firmly based on the inerrant Word of God, in contrast to the rampant liberalism they had contended with so long;
• a denomination committed to a broadly Reformed theological position, steering clear of both a formless evangelicalism with sketchy theological commitments and a narrow sectarianism that could consume our energies building a theological fortress;
• above all, a denomination aggressively pursuing the mission our Lord gave His church of making disciples of all nations.

This original vision has attracted many to the PCA throughout her history. It has fueled the evangelistic zeal that has resulted in scores of churches planted in the United States and Canada, and the development of the largest Presbyterian mission force in history. It can unite us today as it did at our founding nearly 40 years ago.

The Original Vision Network, which is being developed through the initiative of Mission to the World, consists of both fathers of the PCA and younger leaders who want to see our denomination rally around this vision once again. The Original Vision Network will promote this vision through a website, through seminars at the General Assembly, and through the individual influence of its members. Dr. Larry Hoop, who has served 24 years as pastor of the Colfax Center Presbyterian Church, will coordinate this network, with the advice of a Steering Committee of well respected PCA leaders.

We invite you to join the Original Vision Network. We need both active participants who will seek to promote the original vision personally in their circles of influence, and sponsors who will support the network with their prayer and financial support.

You can download this letter here.

As our Board of Trustees announced a few days ago, I will be transitioning from my post as President of Covenant Seminary as of June 1, 2012, to the position of Chancellor. I will assume the Chancellor responsibilities following my current sabbatical.

Though this move may come as a surprise to some, such a transition has been part of our discussions for several years as the Board, the President’s Cabinet, and I sought to establish a strategic vision for the future of the Seminary’s leadership. As the Board has worked to discern the next phase in the development of the Seminary’s mission, this seemed an appropriate time for the transition to occur.

My wife, Kathy, and I have considered it a great privilege to serve the Covenant Seminary family, the PCA, and Christ’s body by helping to prepare future church leaders to proclaim the gospel of grace. We now give special thanks to our God for a Board that has provided this opportunity to direct our energies to the areas of service we most treasure.

I am excited by the opportunity to focus my time on serving as an ambassador for the mission and ministry of Covenant Seminary. As Chancellor, I will continue to be available as a consultant for future Seminary leaders, teach homiletics courses, travel and speak on behalf of the Seminary, and assist in building and nurturing relationships with our many alumni, donors, friends, and other faithful supporters.

As I look back on nearly three decades of service with Covenant Seminary, first as a faculty member, then in various administrative roles, and finally as President—not to mention my time as a student here before that—I am struck by how much of my life and ministry, and that of my family as well, has revolved around and been influenced by the godly people and values of this amazing institution.

Kathy and I are profoundly grateful for the many friends in the Seminary community, past and present, who have made it such a joy to live and serve here. We are grateful to have been able to raise our children in a community so steeped in the gospel of grace and so rich with Christ-like love. We are grateful as well for the many ways in which the Lord has blessed the institution during our time here, and how he has grown it so beautifully—through the labors of many faithful and dedicated servants—into a place of increasingly expanding influence for the gospel.

In the book of Ecclesiastes, the wise Preacher reminds us: To everything there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven (Eccl. 3:1 kjv). As one season in the life of Covenant Seminary draws to a close and a new one begins, please pray with me for the Lord’s continued blessing on an institution that has been such a powerfully transforming part of my own life, and of the lives of so many others who have lived, studied, taught, worked, and gone forth from here to minister God’s Word.

Pray for wisdom and discernment for the Seminary’s leaders during this time of transition, especially Dr. Mark Dalbey as he assumes the role of Interim President, and the search committee our Board has established to seek the institution’s next President. May they—and we—keep our eyes and hearts fixed always on the One who leads and guides us, and may his boundless loving-kindness spur us on to run the race before us with perseverance and with hope.

In his service,
Bryan Chapell

by Rachel Miller

As I’ve noted before, BioLogos is dogmatic about evolution and flexible about everything else. What happens when that approach is applied to the Resurrection? Michael Ruse, a contributor at BioLogos, writes about how to reconcile evolution with Christianity. While he is not a believer, he does believe that evolution and Christianity are compatible. In his book, Darwinism and Its Discontents, Ruse discusses how the Resurrection of Christ can be reconciled with a naturalistic worldview:

The Christian believes that humans can be saved by the death of Christ on the Cross and his subsequent Resurrection. The Christian believes that this salvation will come after death — or at the Second Coming. On these matters, Darwinism is silent. But what about the Resurrection, and indeed all of the other miracles surrounding the Christian story? What about the feeding of the five thousand and Christ walking on water? What about the subsequent miracles of the Apostles, or the miracles supposedly still occurring — the marks the Catholic Church seeks for admission to sainthood? Some supposed miracles are by their very nature put beyond the bounds of science. The appearance of souls — whether it occurred just once and then was transmitted, or occurs for each individual — is something about which science can say nothing. The same is true of transubstantiation, the miracle that occurs in the Catholic mass, when the water and wine is turned into the body and blood of Christ. No amount of microscopic examination of the host is going to reveal red corpuscles. It is just not that sort of miracle.

But what about rising from the dead and turning water into wine? Darwinism is a scientific theory, and scientific theories exclude miracles — that is what they are all about, working through laws. There are two (traditional) approaches one can take. The first, stemming from Saint Augustine, interprets miracles for their spiritual meaning rather than seeing them as violations of law. Thus, to take the miracle at Cana (water into wine), the real miracle was not some jiggery pokery that was shortcutting the fermenting process, but the fact that the man throwing the party supplied his guests fully, even bringing out his very best wine when they had no reason to expect it. Jesus filled him with such love that he went against his usual nature. (Can any one of my readers deny having brought out the cheap plonk when the guests were well lubricated?) Even the miracle of the Resurrection can be treated this way. The real miracle was not some reversal of life-death processes, but that, on the third day, the disciples who were downcast and lonely suddenly felt a great lift and that life was meaningful for them — that Jesus had left a message and example that they wanted to promulgate. If some psychologist explains this in terms of mass hysteria or whatever, so be it. There will always be a natural explanation. This leaves the meaning of the event untouched. (Michael Ruse, Darwinism and Its Discontents, New York: Cambridge University Press, 2006, 280)

Because TE Gleason’s form of Semper Fi, Texas GOP, Americanism that makes up (at least part) of his “historically informed” worship, just doesn’t travel that well. And although I am proud to share a General Assembly with brothers that a very different from me, please do not ask me to share it with my congregation along with the Gospel.

Now, TE Rogers has written another article clarifying his original criticisms. To begin with, he states that when he described Dr. Gleason in the way he did in the quote above, “I was attempting to point out serious shortcomings and areas of genuine disagreement in his article by use of humor.”

Then, TE Rogers set out to make clear what his real criticisms of Dr. Gleason’s articles were:

1. Dr. Gleason used military metaphors. “I was troubled by his use of military experience as a qualification for speaking to the church about a matter of ecclesiastical importance. . . . And I don’t think I am the only one that would prefer to hear our Elders reflect on lessons learned somewhere that places less emphasis on shooting enemies and places more emphasis on loving them.”
2. Dr. Gleason belittled justification by faith alone. “I was troubled by Dr. Gleason’s evident Latitudinarianism. . . . When he put opposition to illegal immigration in a list of serious ills facing the church, next to justification by faith alone, he belittled that great doctrine of our faith, in my honest opinion.”
3. Dr. Gleason downplayed the danger of apostasy. Because Dr. Gleason referred to an article that spoke of union with heretical denominations when asking when the PCA would be too big, this, according to Rogers, Gleason “conflate[d] union with unbelievers with disagreements within an orthodox church,” and thus “downplay[ed] the danger of apostasy.”

You can read the full article here.